Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Paisley Burgh Extension Bill (by Order),

Rutherglen Burgh Bill (by Order),

Read a Second Time, and committed.

STREET ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY VEHICLES.

Address for Return "showing the number of accidents resulting in death or personal injury known by the police to have been caused by vehicles in streets, roads, or public places in Great Britain during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1924 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 53, of Session 1924)."—[Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

ACCUMULATED CREDITS.

Mr. FENBY: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions if interest is paid on the accumulated credits of an ex-service man and pensioner while in hospital; and, if so, at what rate?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. FENBY: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary think it unjust and unfair that a man who has given his mind for his country in the War, and who is
£ 100 in credit, should be deprived of any accumulated interest if he recovers his mental balance, or that his next-of-kin should be deprived of it if he dies: and will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take steps to see that this is put right?

Major CRAWFURD: Will the same principles apply in cases where retrospective awards are made, which often go as far back as 10 or 12 months?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: The second supplementary question does not arise out of the question on the Paper. It is not the policy of the State to allow interest on any payments paid by it, and that applies to all Departments. In such a case as is now referred to, the money is held while the man is in hospital—unless, as is generally the case, he wishes to allot it to his wife and family—so that he may have a nest-egg to assist him to tide over any time that may elapse before he gets employment.

Mr. FENBY: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot argue the matter. This is not the time for Debate.

APPEALS (ASSISTANCE).

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions if, by arrangesment with the Lord Chancellor, he will issue regulations to permit local pension committees to authorise the payment of the railway fare of anyone who is prepared to assist an appellant in stating his case,-when, in the opinion of the local pensions committee the appellant, through his disability, is incapable of adequately presenting his case before Appeal Tribunals?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: My right hon. Friend would have no power to authorise payment of the expenses suggested, the matter being entirely one for the Lord Chancellor. My right hon. Friend desires, however, to add that the suggestion made by the hon. Member has previously been most carefully considered, both by himself and other Ministers of Pensions, with the Lord Chancellor, but it was their considered opinion that the introduction of a system of State-paid advocacy would not be in the best interests of appellants. It may further be pointed out that it is
already an instruction, under the Regulations issued by the Lord Chancellor regarding the procedure of appeals, that the tribunal shall assist any appellant who, for any cause, is unable to make the best of his case, and my right hon. Friend has every reason to believe that this instruction is fully and sympathetically complied with.

Mr. THOMSON: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that my question relates, not to the payment of advocates, but to the payment of the travelling expenses of a witness to support the appellant when he is unable to state his own case, and could not the hon. and gallant Gentleman differentiate and make representations to the Lord Chancellor that travelling expenses should be paid in this limited number of cases?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I have already informed the hon. Member that that is entirely a question for the Lord Chancellor. In addition to that, under the rules laid down by the Lord Chancellor for these tribunals, expert witnesses or other witnesses that may be necessary can be called by the tribunal, and their expenses are paid.

Mr. MACKINDER: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that cases have been known in which discharged soldiers have had their tongues taken out, and no opportunity has been provided for their bringing someone to assist them in staring their case?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: That is precisely the kind of case in which the tribunal has power to call witnesses to help the man if it is necessary, and one of the intimations laid clown to them is that they are to do their utmost to help the man in presenting his case.

Mr. GROVES: 5.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the fact that many ex-service men and their dependants are unable to pay the necessary expenses of securing assistance when making their appeals before the House of Lords Tribunal, and are not able themselves to do justice to their own cases in a Court of that character, he will place at the disposal of appellants an official from his Department in order to ensure that no claim shall suffer from inadequate presentation?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: As in these cases the issue before the Tribunal on appeal is a decision of the Ministry itself, my right hon. Friend fears that the hon. Member's suggestion would be impracticable. My right hon. Friend desires, however, to point out that the case for the appellant is fairly and fully set out in the précis before the Court, a copy of which is supplied to the appellant, and he has no evidence that the procedure of the Tribunal, the members of which assist the appellant to make the best of his case, would be improved in the interests of appellants by the institution of paid advocacy.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is not the British Legion both able and willing to help all such cases?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: Yes, Sir.

Major COHEN: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that it is a very costly matter for the British Legion?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I cannot answer that.

Major CRAWFURD: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that many Members of this House receive evidence almost daily of the total failure of this system?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: No, Sir, not at all.

ORPHANS.

Colonel DAY: 4.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many orphans of soldiers, sailors and airmen killed in the late. War are in orphanages and similar institutions, and how many are in the Poor Law schools; and has he undertaken the complete financial responsibility of all children thus placed?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I assume That the hon. Member has in mind children taken under my care under Section 9 of the War Pensions Act, 1918. There are 3,291 such children, of whom 2,539 are boarded out in private homes and 752 are in institutions because of mental or physical infirmities, for training or for other reasons. These children, so far as they are of school age, are attending elementary schools or are receiving appropriate education in the institutions. The pensions payable for these children are in accordance with the terms of the
Royal Warrant, and are supplemented where it is necessary in order that proper provision may be made.

Mr. LANSBURY: In cases where soldiers have been removed from pauper lunatic asylums and are now chargeable to the Pension Fund, will their children and other dependants who are now dependent on the Poor Law be paid for by the Ministry of Pensions, or are they classed as paupers while their fathers are now removed from pauperism?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it not the fact that the practice of the Ministry is to board out the children of deceased ex-service men in respectable families wherever it is possible?

Lieut.- Colonel STANLEY: That is so. As to the question of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), I must ask for notice; I cannot give him the information off-hand.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say how many of these children are in Poor Law institutions?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I inquired about that, and, as a general rule, there are none. Every now and then it may occasionally happen that, while they are waiting to be boarded out, they may be placed in an institution, but it is only for a short time, and they are removed from the institution as soon as possible.

FINAL AWARDS.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: 6.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will consider the possibility of allowing men who are granted a final award for a disability assessed as under 20 per cent. to appeal within 12 months of the termination of the pension award instead of within 12 months of the grant of the award; and whether he will make this right retrospective in all cases of disability below 20 per cent. in which appeals have not already been lodged?

Lieut.- Colonel STANLEY: Having regard to the provisions of Section 4 of the War Pensions Act, 1921, the suggestion made in this question could not be carried out without legislation. In any event, however, my right hon. Friend could not, in fairness to the general body
of officers and men to whom final awards have been made, give an extended period of appeal to one class alone. My right hon. Friend would point out that the right of appeal is freely exercised in the class of case referred to, since, up to the present date, appeal has been made by slightly more than one out of every four cases in which a final award of this class has been notified.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that many of these men who are unable, on account of disability, to earn a full wage, feel a sense of grievance, and will he have their grievances inquired into with a view to settling them, and repaying these men the debt that we owe them?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: These men have been given awards according to the amount of disability they have sustained, and they have a year in which to appeal. It is entirely in their own discretion whether they make use of that year or not.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the urgent need for amending the Royal Warrant, and will he make representations that legislation ought at once to be introduced in that direction?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: No, Sir, I do not think so. My right hon. Friend, under a previous Government, carried through arrangements which were continued by the last Government in order, where serious error existed, to correct it, and, as far as the Ministry knows—and we watch it very carefully—this is working satisfactorily.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that out of 400 cases in Wales it was only possible to re-open one under these Regulations?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I shall be glad to have any information on that subject.

POLICE (PRE-WAR WIDOWS).

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the financial position in which many widows of pre-War constables are situated owing to the fact that they have no pensions;
and if the Government are prepared to take any measures to remedy this state of affairs?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I regret that I can hold out no prospect of legislation on this question.

BROADMOOR ASYLUM (FOOD CONTRACTS).

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 8.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the tender forms issued by the Broad moor criminal lunatic asylum specify that the cheese is to be American or Canadian and the bacon to be Danish, and that the tendering firms must be on the King a Boll; and whether in future he will arrange, so far as may be possible, that the produce specified should be British, so that the producers, as well as the merchants, should be on the King's Roll?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative I have decided to alter the tender form.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the right hon. Baronet undertake to see that future tender forms specify Chinese liquid eggs?

PLACES OF ENTERTAINMENT (LICENCES).

Colonel DAY: 9.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the difficulties arising from the licensing laws controlling stage plays and singing and dancing licences at theatres, variety theatres, and carabet entertainments at hotels and night clubs, he will consider setting up a commission to investigate and report on the whole situation, with a view of introducing legislation to make licences governing places of entertainment uniform throughout Great Britain?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am aware of anomalies in the existing law relating to the licensing of places of entertainment, but I have not heard of any serious difficulties in its administration. I will bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind, but I do not think the circumstances would warrant my instituting a comprehensive inquiry of this kind at the present time.

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentle man aware that all theatres which hold singing and dancing licences are committing breaches of the law nightly, and will he consider introducing some legislation for the purpose of legalising the entertainments that they have been giving for years?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am certainly not aware of what is stated by the hon. and gallant Member, and I would suggest that he should supply me with full information on the subject.

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of all variety theatres that hold either a singing or dancing licence, if more than two people appear on the scage together in a singing or dancing entertainment they are liable to have summonses taken out against them by any common informer?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is obvious that I have not the acquaintance with the laws in reference to variety entertainments which the hon. Member possesses.

Colonel DAY: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can give the information which he possesses to the Minister at another time.

LIQUOR TRAFFIC (CARLISLE).

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: 10.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has given his approval for the expenditure of any sums of public money in rebuilding and making alterations to public-houses in Carlisle; what is the total amount involved; and what are the special circumstances which render it necessary for such expenditure of public funds to be incurred in that city?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not take the view that special circumstances must be shown in order to justify the schemes of rebuilding and alteration which, with my approval, are being considered or carried out* in Carlisle at the present time. The progressive improvement of public-houses is an essential element in the general policy of the undertaking, and provision for the expenditure involved is made from year to year in the Estimates.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: In all these alterations to houses in Carlisle is provision made for women's baths which are always crowded?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have not the details of the alterations. The whole question can be raised on the Home Office Estimates.

Mr. DALTON: Is not the cost of these repairs more than covered by the large profits at present being made by the sale of drink in Carlisle?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid that I cannot say.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: Was not that profit subject to—

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for debate.

TOMBOLA, HUNGERFORD.

Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWN: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the loss of funds to local hospitals at Hungerford, owing to the action of the police authorities in forbidding a tombola, he will introduce a system of licences whereby a local bench of magistrates can authorise tombolas when satisfied that they are for purely charitable purposes?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not contemplate legislation for the purpose of legalising public lotteries.

Mr. HAYES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a tombola was carried out very satisfactorily in Liverpool without police interference, and whether he cannot refrain from police interference in proper tombolas run elsewhere?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Liverpool is lucky.

MR. HARRY POLLITT (KIDNAPPING).

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: 13.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has made further inquiries into the alleged kidnapping of Mr. Harry Pollitt, at Edgehill Station, on Saturday last; and with what result?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Warrants have been issued by the Magistrate in
Liverpool to-day for the arrest of certain of the persons suspected of having taken part in the detention of Mr. Pollitt, and three of them are already in custody.

MOTOR LICENCES.

Captain BRASS: 14.
asked the Home Secretary the number of licences to drive motor vehicles issued during the year 1924?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to reply. The numbers of driving licences issued during 1924 were approximately as follow:

England and Wales
1,499,000


Scotland
151,000



1,650,000

Captain BRASS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of instituting a test before licences are issued?

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not think that that arises out of the question.

MOTORISTS (FINES).

Captain BRASS: 15.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can state the amount of money received from fines inflicted on motorists for exceeding the speed limit in the United Kingdom, during each quarter of the year 1924; and to what purpose these moneys were devoted?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The amounts received in respect of the particular offence of exceeding the speed limit cannot be stated. Fines inflicted for offences under the Motor Car Acts and the Roads Act are paid into the Motor Tax Account, after deduction of Court and police fees.

Captain BRASS: Who decides whether a police trap is to be set on a particular piece of road, and will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions to the Metropolitan Police to cease this practice?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The decision is in the hands of the Commissioner of Police in the Metropolis. I do not think that it would be right for me, while
the law is as it is, to give instructions to the Metropolitan Police to abstain from enforcing it.

Captain BRASS: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring pressure to bear on the Prime Minister and the Government to alter the law?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS.

Colonel DAY: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the different fees charged by secondary schools in various parts of England and Wales, varying from £ 8 and more in some counties to £ 1 Is., or less, in others, he will confer with local education authorities with a view to reducing these fees so that the children of poorer parents should be given a better chance of secondary education?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, I am inviting all authorities to submit to me programmes covering the needs of their area over a period of three or five years. The point raised in the question is one which authorities will, no doubt, consider when drawing up these programmes.

Mr. FENBY: 28.
asked the President of the Board of Education what proportion of pupils entering secondary schools with free places do so at the age of 13 plus; and has the Board any information as to the success of these pupils, as compared with those who enter at the age of 11 plus?

Lord E. PERCY: Exact figures are not available, but on the information before me I do not think that the number of free-place pupils who are admitted at 13 years of age or later represents more than 10 per cent. of the free-place admissions. As regards the second part of the question, I have no particulars as to the attainments of these late entrants which would enable me to institute such a comparison as the hon. Member suggests.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION (DONCASTER AREA).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Education what
elementary school accommodation there is at Dunscroft and Stainforth, near Don-caster; how many children are being taught in temporary schools; the number of temporary schools; and how many children of school age are receiving no education at all?

Lord E. PERCY: As the reply to this question is rather long, and contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the answer:
The district of Stainforth (Thorne), near Doncaster, is served at present by the Stainforth Council School, which provides 644 places, of which 370 are in a temporary iron building, and 100 are in a Sunday school and Church room. All these places are filled, and information in the Board's possession, about a year ago, suggests that there were then nearly 150 children of school age awaiting admission. Owing to the rapid colliery developments in the neighbourhood this number may have subsequently increased. Plans for a new school for about 1,000 children have been approved, and the first instalment of 500 places is understood to be nearing completion. As regards Dunscroft, which is situated in the adjoining civil parish of Hatfield, the public elementary school accommodation consists of the council school at Hatfield Woodhouse and the Travis Church of England school, which together provide 262 places (150 and 112 respectively). In addition, the local authority have recently re-opened a small school near the Travis school, providing 57 places for infants. Against this total accommodation of 319 places, the average number of children on the registers for the year ended 31st March, 1924, was 225. In order to meet the needs of Dunscroft itself, the authority issued in November last public notice of their intention to provide a new school for about 600 children, and I understand that they are now in active negotiation for a suitable site.
The hon. Member may rest assured that the question of school supply in this and other rapidly developing mining areas of the West Riding is receiving, and will continue to receive, the constant and active attention of the Board and the local authority, and that all possible
steps will be taken, so far as the existing shortage of labour and materials permit, to see that the provision of schools keeps pace with housing developments.

Mr. WILLIAMS: 21.
also asked the President of the Board of Education what provision, if any, is being made to prepare for the elementary school requirements in the town of Thorne, near Doncaster?

Lord E. PERCY: The local authority gave public notice on 31st January last of their intention to provide additional public elementary school accommodation for about 350 children, and it is understood that plans are now in the course of preparation for submission to my Department.

APPRENTICESHIPS.

Mr. CLARRY: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he is prepared to consider the encouragement of private firms in an extension of the apprenticeship system based upon lines which meet with the approval of his Department?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir A. Steel-Maitland): I have been asked to reply. As I stilted yesterday in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Stratford, I have already arranged for an inquiry to be made in the near, future into the state of apprenticeship in the various trades, and as soon as this inquiry is completed I will consider, in the light of the information thus obtained, what action can usefully be taken.

JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT.

Mr. HARRIS: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Education what machinery exists at present to assist pupils leaving public elementary schools to obtain suitable employment,i.e.,employment not of a blind-alley nature; and is it his intention to confer with the Minister of Labour as to the possibility of improving such machinery?

Lord E. PERCY: In a substantial number of areas in England and Wales the work of advising and helping school children to obtain suitable employment is undertaken by the local education authorities in exercise of their powers under Section 107 of the Education Act, 1921. In the remaining areas
the Minister of Labour is responsible for the work, and the Minister normally sets up a Juvenile Advisory Committee, containing representatives of the various interests concerned, to assist the Employment Exchanges. These Committees cooperate closely, I believe, in all cases, with the local education authority. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a circular (No. 1322) showing the usual methods of administration adopted by authorities, and also a document describing the work of juvenile advisory committees. I am in constant conference with my right hon. Friend on this matter. As an instance of the manner in which this work is being developed, I may mention that I understand a committee of teachers has recently been formed, representing three counties in the Midlands, for the purpose of advising the Minister of Labour.

Mr. LANSBURY: Would it be possible to get a return showing the number of boys and girls who are placed by the various committees and the sorts of situations that are obtained: that is, how many are put into blind alleys and how many get regular work?

Viscountess ASTOR: Is not the best means of keeping the children out of blind alleys to extend the school age?

Lord E. PERCY: No doubt the noble Lady will represent that to her local authority.

Viscountess ASTOR: I have done so.

Lord E. PERCY: I will look into the question of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). I think that figures would be available for certain areas, but not for all.

Mr. A. R. KENNEDY: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is in a position to state when the conference on juvenile employment will take place; and what will be the constitution of the conference and the terms of reference?

Lord E. PERCY: I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour upon this matter. We are anxious that the conference or inquiry which I suggested in general terms on the 24th February should take a form which will ensure a practical result; that it
should not merely go over ground already covered by the inquiries of previous Committees or by inquiries now being conducted by the Ministry of Labour; and that it should be able to take into account, not only the varied requirements of different industries, but also the varied local conditions and customs within the industries themselves. At the moment I can only assure my hon. Friend that we will proceed as expeditiously as possible in a matter which we regard as of the very first importance.

UNCERTIFICATED TEACHERS.

Mr. HARRIS: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Education what is the present proportion of uncertificated

—
Certificated Teachers.
Uncertificated Teachers.
Supplementary Teachers.


London
97. 3
1.0
1.7


County Boroughs
85.1
13.6
1.8


Boroughs and Urban Districts
77.3
20.7
2.0


Counties (other than London)
56.8
30.8
12.4

As regards the last part of the question, I may refer the hon. Member to paragraph 10 of Circular 1325, a copy of which I am sending him.

RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION.

Mr. HARRIS: 85.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the requirements of the Education Acts as to religious instruction in a State-provided elementary school, he will say whether there are any local education authority areas in England, and, if so, how many, in which religious instruction is not given in provided elementary schools?

Lord E. PERCY: I find that the Board have no official information on this subject as they do not inspect religious instruction in public elementary schools. The regulation of such instruction in provided schools has been left entirely to the discretion of the local authorities, who are under no obligation to bring the matter to the official cognisance of the Board in the ordinary course of administration.

Mr. HARRIS: Could not the right hon. Gentlemen get the figures for the information for the House, by asking for them from the various local authorities?
teachers in public elementary schools in London, in county boroughs, in boroughs and urban districts, and in areas under county councils, respectively; and what steps, if any, are being taken by the Board to reduce these proportions?

Lord E. PERCY: As the reply to this question contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the answer:
On 31st December last the percentage of certificated, uncertificated and supplementary teachers, respectively, to the total number of such teachers employed in each of the different types of area were:

Lord E. PERCY: I could no doubt send out a request for them. A return was made some 20 years ago. I am a little bit shy about asking local authorities on the point.

TEACHERS' SCHOLARSHIPS.

Major CRAWFURD: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the Board will proceed to determine for the recipients of its teachers' scholarships a fixed grant, payable at dates also fixed, inconvenience being caused by the fluctuation of both?

Lord E. PERCY: I am not clear to what teachers' scholarships the hon. and gallant Member refers, but if he will furnish me with particulars of any cases in which he considers that inconvenience or hardship has arisen under the present system of payment of grants, I will inquire into the matter.

UNIVERSITY TUTORIAL CLASSES.

Mr. FENBY: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Education what is the number of university tutorial classes which have been provisionally recognised for grant this Session under the new regulations: how does this number compare with the number of classes working
under the old regulations in 1923-24; and what number of preparatory tutorial classes have been provisionally recognised for grant?

Lord E. PERCY: Three hundred and seventy-five three-year tutorial classes and six advanced tutorial classes have already been recognised under the new Adult Education Regulations for the current session, whilst applications for recognition of 41 three-year classes and three advanced classes are under consideration. For the year 1923-24, 362 three-year, and five advanced, classes were recognised. Sixty-eight preparatory tutorial classes have already been recognised for the current session, and five applications are under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

BUILDING SOCIETIES.

Mr. RYE: 31.
asked the Minister of Health if it is the intention of the Government to advance money to approved building societies at a low rate of interest and for a fixed period of years, to enable such societies to accelerate advances required for the erection of houses for the working classes: and, if so, what amount will be advanced, at what rate of interest, and for what period?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): No, Sir. The Housing Acts already make provisions for assisting the erection of houses by the grant of subsidies and by providing facilities for the raising of capital, including arrangements for the guaranteeing by local authorities of part of the advances by building societies.

Mr. RYE: Does my right hon. Friend not think it advisable to use these well-known organisations for the purpose of facilitating the building of houses for the working classes?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. That is the purpose of the provisions to which I have referred.

Mr. RYE: 32.
asked the Minister of Health if he has any return from the building societies of the number of
houses erected, up to 31st December last, with the assistance of financial aid from such societies and without, respectively?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:: have made inquiries of the Registrar of Friendly Societies and of the Building Societies Association, but statistics on the point referred to by my hon. Friend are not available.

WEDNESBURY.

Mr. SHORT: 34.
asked the Minister of Health the date when the last Wednesbury municipal housing scheme was completed; and whether any new municipal housing scheme has been adopted, and the number of houses involved?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The last scheme for the erection of houses by the Wednesbury Corporation was completed on 1st September, 1922. Three hundred and fifty-eight houses were erected under that scheme. The council's scheme under the Housing, &c, Act, 1923, for the assistance of private persons building houses was approved on 30th October, 1923. Under this scheme, which is still in force, promise of assistance has been given up to date in respect of 35 houses. I understand that the council have under consideration a scheme for the erection by the corporation of 150 houses.

Mr. SHORT: 54.
asked the Minister of Health if the Wednesbury Town Council applied for sanction to build houses on a site now used for recreation purposes: the date of such application: and what, if any, was the nature of his reply?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The town council made application on the 6th January last for consent to the appropriation for housing purposes of the land referred to in the question. It was necessary for a local inquiry to be held upon this application and, after consideration of the inspector's report, I have decided to consent to the appropriation.

BUILDING TRADE OPERATIVES.

Captain WATERHOUSE: 41.
asked the Minister of Health if he will have Returns made to show the number of building trade operatives employed from time to time on work under the Housing Acts, 1923 and 1924?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I had previously considered the question of obtaining Returns on the lines suggested by the hon. and gallant Member. I find that such Returns would involve considerable labour in regard to local authorities' schemes and would be incomplete owing to the impracticability of obtaining statistics of men employed on private enterprise work. I am afraid, therefore, that it will not be possible to adopt the suggestion.

LEICESTER.

Captain WATERHOUSE: 42.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that men employed on the Leicester Corporation housing contract are forced to use pieces of wood or slate to lay the cement bedding for concrete blocks owing to the fact that the Bricklayers' Union will not permit them to use trowels; and, in view of the fact that this action is prejudicial to the weather-proof quality of the work, impedes progress, thereby tending to increase the burden on the ratepayers, and is of no advantage to the bricklayers, he will take steps to get this restriction withdrawn?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have made inquiries into the matter to which my hon. Friend refers. I am informed that the method adopted is not the result of any prohibition of the use of trowels by the Bricklayers' Union, but that it has been found to be the method best adapted to the particular system of building in use.

Captain WATERHOUSE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I asked one of the men using this tool, and he said he could greatly increase his production if he was allowed to use a trowel, but that the union prevented him?

Mr. MONTAGUE: Are these men members of the Bricklayers' Union? If not, why not? If they are, when did the Bricklayers' Union prevent bricklayers from using trowels?

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot now discuss that subject.

LIVERPOOL.

Mr. GIBBINS: 51.
asked the Minister of Health whether plans have been submitted for the erection of houses in Liverpool during 1925; if so, how many houses were involved, the type of house to be erected, and the cost of the houses;
and whether they are being constructed under the 1923 or 1924 Housing Acts?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: During the present year approval has been given to the erection of 3,000 houses by the Liverpool Corporation. The types of houses are normally non-parlour houses with three bedrooms or parlour houses with three bedrooms: the area of the former type is about 814 superficial feet, and of the parlour houses approximately 950 square feet. The latest accepted tender prices covering 1,000 houses are £ 406 for the non-parlour house and £ 405 for the parlour house. Probably the whole of these 3,000 houses will be erected under the terms of financial assistance provided by the Act of 1924.

Sir JOHN PENNEFATHER: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the vigour with which the housing question is being dealt with in Liverpool, and is he also satisfied on the ground of economy?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would not like to answer that question without notice.

Mr. GIBBINS: 52.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses built in Liverpool during the year 1924?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The number of State-assisted houses completed in Liverpool during the year 1924 was 505 of which 243 were erected by the Corporation and 262 by private enterprise. Information is not available for the calendar year as to the number of houses erected with State assistance, but during the 12 months ended the 30th September. 1924, the number completed was 275.

UNOCCUPIED HOUSES (SHEFFIELD).

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 57.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received a copy of the resolution passed by the Sheffield City Council at its meeting on the 11th instant, urging that legislation be promoted in the present Session of Parliament providing that in the event of any dwelling-house remaining unoccupied for a period of six months rates thereon shall be payable by the owner in respect of any further period during which such house shall remain unoccupied unless it can be proved before a competent tribunal, legal or otherwise, that the owner of such dwelling-house has used all reasonable efforts to let the same at a fair and reasonable rent; and whether
with a view to relieving the serious housing shortage in Sheffield and elsewhere, he proposes to take any action on the lines suggested?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received a copy of this Resolution. As regards the last part of the question I can only refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 19th February to the hon. Member for St. George's (Mr. Erskine). I am sending the hon. Member a copy of that reply.

POOR LAW RELIEF.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: 36.
asked the Minister of Health whether the


Year ending March.
Total Expenditure in England and Wales on the relief of the poor and purposes connected therewith.
Amount (included in Column 2) in respect, of purely administrative charges not allocated to Institutional and Domiciliary relief (e.g., salaries and other remuneration and superannuation of Clerks and Treasurers to Boards of Guardians and their assistants, stationery and other office expenses, upkeep of hoard rooms, fees for certificates under the Lunacy Acts).


1.
2.
1.



£
£


1921
31,924,954
1,186,919


1922
42,272,555
1,236,243


1923
41,934,437
1,182,302


1924
38,000,000
1,185,000


The amounts entered for 1923–24 are estimates.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 56.
asked the Minister of Health in how many cases he has exercised his powers to defer payment of interest and the repayment of principal of temporary loans made to boards of guardians for the relief of the able-bodied unemployed: and, in view of the extra burden placed on local authorities by the increase in the bank rate, will ho use his powers more freely in this direction in the future?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Out of eight cases in which loans have been advanced to boards of guardians in England and Wales on the recommendation of the Gosehen Committee, payment of interest has been deferred in three cases and repayment of principal deferred in seven cases. I have no doubt that in considering any future applications the Committee will continue, subject to the conditions prescribed by the Treasury, to take all relevant considerations into account.

Government intend to bring in legislation during the present Session to amend the exixsting Law regarding Poor Law relief?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

Mr. CLARRY: 39.
asked the Minister of Health the total amount expended in Poor Law relief and the proportion thereof absorbed in purely administrative charges during each of the last four years?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the reply contains a number of figures, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following in the information:

Mr. THOMSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the deferment of payments in cases of loans, the expense of which has already increased on account of the rise in the bank rate and in view of the heavy charges on these overburdened districts in respect of existing loans?

Mr. WALLHEAD: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to introduce legislation for the assistance of areas which are overburdened by rates because of the provision of Poor Law relief for unemployed men: and is he aware that in the Borough of Merthyr there is likely to be an increase in the rates of 2s. in the £ owing to unemployment relief?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In answer to the first supplementary question, any application made with the object which the hon. Member has in mind will receive due consideration. In answer to the second supplementary question, I do not know exactly what kind of legislation the
hon. Member has in mind, but I think the best way of dealing with this matter is to increase employment.

Mr. STEPHEN: Why do you not do so?.

Mr. BECKETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that shipbuilding con-tracts are being lost all over the country owing to the fact that the wages of foreign labour and the rates of exchange are generally lower and that British shipbuilding in greatly handicapped?

NECESSITOUS AREAS (GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 37.
asked the Minister of Health in what way local authorities whose poor rate is excessive on account of abnormal unemployment are receiving special assistance from the Government, which is not available for other local authorities where the rate of unemployment is normal?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the hon. Member knows, the Unemployment Grants Committee, in sanctioning schemes for the relief of unemployment, give special consideration to areas in which the burden of unemployment is heaviest.

Mr. THOMSON: In view of the increasing amount, of unemployment in certain areas, cannot the right hon. Gentleman see his way to recommend the Unemployment Grants Committee to give increased assistance commensurate with this increased unemployment?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not my custom to make recommendations to the Unemployment Grants Committee.

Mr. THOMSON: To whom is the Unemployment Grants Committee responsible, if not to the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question of policy has been laid down by Statute and not by me.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider the waiving of the interest that has accrued up to date on loans already made?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is a hypothetical question. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular proposition to put before me I will consider it.

Mr. ALEXANDER: It arises out of the promise which you made.

SMOKE ABATEMENT.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 40.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that about 70 per cent. of air pollution is the result of smoke from industrial chimneys; whether his Department has taken any steps to investigate the problem of smoke prevention by the use of smoke-filtering apparatus and with what result: and whether he will inquire what has been done by way of experiment by the corporations of our larger cities?

Captain REID: 53.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that 06 per cent. of the air pollution is due to smoke from industrial chimneys and that such air pollution is known to be injurious to health, any legislation is contemplated which would make the use of smoke-filters in factories compulsory?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: For the country generally, the proportions of industrial smoke stated by the hon. Members appear to be much too high. I hope to introduce a Bill on the subject next Session. T have no special information about smoke filters, but if the hon. Members have any device in mind, I shall be pleased to receive particulars from them.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: Do I understand that the National Physical Laboratory is not now conducting experiments on this matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that I have no information on that point.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it not a fact that the greatest contributor to smoke pollution is the domestic fire?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that that is so.

CASUAL WARDS (STONE-POUNDING).

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 43.
asked the Minister of Health in what unions stone-pounding is now employed as a task; and whether he will abolish it when he. makes new regulations for the casual wards?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sending the hon. Member a list of the unions in which, according to the recent survey of casual wards, stone-pounding is now employed as a task. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a previous question by the hon. Member for Rotherhithe, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that stone-pounding is both useless and expensive, and that it ought to be abolished, and cannot work of another character be given?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the hon. Member will make a suggestion as to an alternative task?

Mr. RICHARDSON: I suggest that some land be purchased and that the men be put on it.
44. The hon. Member further asked the Minister of Health the names of the unions where, before the decision of Rex v. Baddely, the guardians had power to give stone-pounding as a task, and the dates of and the means whereby they obtained the power; whether the guardians sought and the Local Government Board, or previous authority, gave the power with the object of preventing destitute wayfarers from obtaining relief or, if not, with what other object?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sending the hon. Member a list of the unions in which the Local Government Board had approved stone-pounding as an alternative task for casuals before the decision to which he refers, and the years in which approval was given. The law contemplates that casuals shall be required to perform v task before discharge, and stone-pounding was recommended for this purpose by the Departmental Committee on Vagrancy which reported in 1906.

COLOGNE (EVACUATION).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can give the House any information as to the present position of the question of Cologne; and whether the evacuation is now connected in any way with the question of French security as a result of conversations in Paris or Geneva?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): In regard to the first part of this question, the Report of the Military Commission of Control is being subjected to a close technical scrutiny in order to enable the Allied Governments to formulate their demands upon Germany in respect of her disarmament obligations. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask when we are likely to get the publication of this Report or such parts of it as the Government think would conduce to an understanding by this country and by Germany of the default?

The PRIME MINISTER: I could not answer that question without notice, but my hon. and gallant Friend knows that there will be a Debate on Tuesday, when these points can be raised.

Mr. LEES SMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he anticipates that this technical scrutiny will be complete?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that I cannot.

NAVAL CONSTRUCTION.

Major PRICE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister if he can give a date when the decision of the Cabinet as to new naval construction will be made known to the House; and if in view of the impossibility of the House adequately discussing naval policy until such decision is known, he will do all he can to hasten the decision of the Cabinet on this question?

The PRIME MINISTER: As has already been announced, a Cabinet Committee is inquiring into the naval shipbuilding position, but my hon. and gallant Friend will, I am sure, realise that the subject is one of such great importance and of such wide scope that it must inevitably be some considerable time before a final decision is reached.

Commander BELLAIRS: With regard to an inquiry of a precisely similar nature which the Labour Government announced in a White Paper last March, may we know whether any records of that inquiry were left behind?

The PRIME MINISTER: I could not answer that question without notice.

Commander BELLAIRS: Will Supplementary Estimates be submitted to the House immediately after the inquiry?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think a statement has already been made to the effect that, if the results of the inquiry-need Supplementary Estimates, they will be presented, I hope, before Parliament rises for the summer holiday.

Major PRICE: In view of the paragraph on this subject in the statement of the. First Lord, is it a fact that new construction will be made this year?

The PRIME MINISTER: That must largely depend on the result of the inquiry.

NATIONAL DEFENCE.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will set up a committee to investigate the possibilities of combining the Air Ministry and the Admiralty into one department for the purpose of obtaining a reduction of administrative expenses, together with a greater concentration of defence effort upon vital points both at Home and Overseas?

The PRIME MINISTER: An exhaustive inquiry into the co-ordination of the Services was made as recently as 1923 by a Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence, and I do not think that the question could be profitably reopened at this stage.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman looked into the question of a combined staff for the three services which would be charged with the placing of orders for material and supplies among other matters?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not quite sure. I would be glad to look into that matter.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Is it not a fact that the co-ordination asked for by the Imperial Defence Committee did not extend to the matter of the co-ordination of supplies?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think so.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Can the Prime Minister give any indication of the
results of the investigation of the Committee of Imperial Defence on this question?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should requite notice of that question.

GOVEENMENT CONTRACTS (FOREIGN MANUFACTURES).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether any arrangements are in force in the various spending Departments whereby no goods of foreign manufacture are to be purchased by them in cases in which such goods are manufactured under conditions of labour less satisfactory as regards rates of pay and hours of labour than the conditions obtaining in the same trades in this country; and, if not, will he consider as to taking steps to ensure this policy being followed?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The general contract policy of His Majesty's Government is to give a preference to the home over the foreign manufacturer. Departments are instructed to explore every possibility of obtaining home supplies before placing orders with foreign manufacturers and, generally speaking, such orders are only placed for special articles which cannot be obtained in this country.

Major CRAWFURD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, in that case, he will make inquiry of his colleague, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and ask him as to the use of foreign three-ply wood in his Department?

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Sir JOHN PENNEFATHER: 50.
asked the Minister of Health in how many cases in the Liverpool district the old age pensions have been found to be insufficient and have been supplemented by the Poor Law guardians, and the minimum and maximum of the relief so granted?

Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: On the 1st January, 1925, the number of old age pensioners in receipt of Poor Law relief, who were chargeable to the West Derby Union, was 1,004. All these pensioners, with 30 exceptions, were suffering from
sickness, accident or bodily or mental infirmity. Precise figures as to the minimum and maximum amounts of relief granted in individual cases are not available.

BRIDPORT POOR LAW INSTITUTION.

Major COLFOX: 55.
asked the Minister of Health for how many years bedsteads and bedding have been provided for the women casuals at the Bridport Poor Law Institution; and whether night-clothes are always provided?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am informed that bedsteads, bedding and night-clothes have for many years been provided for the use of women casuals at Bridport. I am glad to have this opportunity of correcting the list circulated with the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) on the 17th February, and to be able to make a similar correction in the case of the Burton-on-Trent, Dorchester, Sculcoates and Settle Unions.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES' CONTRACTS (BRITISH GOODS).

Sir F. HALL: 58.
asked the Minister of Health whether steps can be taken to impress upon local authorities who have to obtain the sanction of his Department to borrowings for capital expenditure the importance of giving preference to goods of British manufacture, where there is competition with foreign goods produced at much lower labour costs?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In a circular issued during my previous term of office at the Ministry of Health, local authorities were informed that where grants were given in aid of works, contracts for the work must be placed in this country, and they were urged in the absence of special circumstances to adopt the same principle in all works carried out by them. A further circular is about to be issued urging that preference should, wherever practicable, be given to goods produced within the Empire. I will send my hon. Friend a copy of both circulars.

INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has made any approaches to the Italian Government in reference to the Italian War debt to this country?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave to the hon. Member for the Stroud Division (Sir F. Nelson) on the 12th February and to the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) on the 24th February, to which I can add nothing at present.

GERMAN REPARATION.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount on German reparation account he is estimating for in the forthcoming year?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I must ask the hon. Member to await the Budget statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

CIVIL SERVICE.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can give an estimate as to the amount it would cost to allow civil servants, including postmen, to reckon service with the Army and Navy towards pension; and whether he will be prepared to grant this privilege to ex-service civil servants?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): There are so many unknown factors involved in this calculation that I am unable to give a reliable estimate of the approximate cost, but it would clearly be very large. The Government is not prepared to depart from the decision of previous Governments that the proposal, which would require legislation, cannot be accepted.

Captain HOLT: 69.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what proportion of the candidates on the un-appointed list arising from the open competition of 1921 for the administrative class of the Civil Service were ex-service men; and how many of these ex-service men obtained higher marks
than the 39th candidate on the general list, who has been appointed to the Indian Civil Service?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am informed that out of 41 candidates for appointment to the administrative class of the home Civil Service who failed to secure appointments at the open competition of 1921, 29 were ex-service men. Of these, 11 obtained higher marks than were obtained by the 39th candidate on the general list.

TRAINING (MANCHESTER).

Mr. DUCKWORTH: 73.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that 10 men training in the Watch and Clock Department, G.I.F., Ayres Road, Old Trafford, Manchester, were given four weeks' notice in writing on 3rd March to terminate their course on 31st March, and that they were afterwards informed that they must finish on 10th March, so depriving them of three weeks' training and wages; and will he explain the reason for this action?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I regret that I cannot give this information without local inquiry. I am making inquiries, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

COMMISSIONERS OF PRISONS (REPORT).

Captain A. EVANS: 68.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the members of the visiting committee of His Majesty's prison at Cardiff have been refused free copies of the Report of the Commissioners of Prisons; that individual Commissioners have to buy copies of their own Report; and, in view of these circumstances, will he give instructions for an adequate number of copies to be printed in the future in order to ensure every Commissioner and member of a visiting committee receiving one free copy?

Lord STANLEY (Lord of the Treasury): My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has asked me to answer this question. The Prison Commissioners are supplied with sufficient free copies for their own use and for a fairly wide distribution. The question of increasing the supply is under consideration in consulta-
tion with the Treasury, and it may be possible to arrange that such individual members of visiting committees as desire separate copies may be supplied.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

SMALL HOLDINGS.

Mr. GROVES: 70.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the total number of ex-service men and others who have been settled on small holdings under the land settlement scheme and the cost of such settlement; and whether his Department has any information to lead to a conclusion that the men who have so settled will succeed in making a satisfactory livelihood?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Edward Wood): The total number of men who have been provided with small holdings since the Armistice by county councils, councils of county boroughs, and by the Ministry direct is 23,124, of whom 20,502 are ex-service men. The capital expenditure in respect of the purchase and equipment of land for this purpose amounts to approximately 15 million pounds. In reply to the last part of the hon. Member's question, it is estimated that, with the exception of about 10 per cent., the men settled are likely to succeed in their enterprise.

Mr. PERCY HARRIS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think this number is very small, considering the enormous number of men who fought for their country, many of whom desire land and have not been able to obtain it?

Mr. WOOD: I do not think I can express an opinion in the form of a short answer. Obviously there are a great many factors involved.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: How much of the £ 15,000,000 is for the purchase of land and how much for equipment?

Mr. WOOD: I could not say without notice, but if my right hon. and gallant Friend will put a question down, I shall be glad to answer it.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Major WHELER: 71.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he proposes to take any action on the Report of the
Departmental Committee on Foot-and-Mouth Disease in 1923 in cases where the Report shows negligence in reporting outbreaks by owners or carelessness by professional men employed in dealing with cases?

Mr. WOOD: My Department has already communicated with local authorities in cases of negligence by inspectors appointed by such authorities, and in a number of cases owners have been prosecuted for failure to report. The recommendations of the Departmental Committee are now receiving my consideration.

Mr. SPENCER: Is not the question of carelessness one rather of inference than of fact? I am referring to the recent Blackpool case.

Mr. WOOD: I should not like to express an opinion about that without notice.

UNEMPLOYMENT (TRANSFER OF WORKMEN).

Mr. BECKETT: 72.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that over 30 miners have had their benefit stopped at the Gateshead Employment Exchange for refusing work at Doncaster, and that these men have had no opportunity of representing their case to the Committee prior to the stoppage of benefit; that Doncaster is one of the worst areas in the county for housing accommodation; and that the men offered work there are usually married men, with families, who cannot support two homes on the present miners' wage; and if he will inquire into this case?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I understand that a number of claims of miners at Gateshead have been disallowed by the chief insurance officer for refusing apparently suitable employment at Doncaster. The decision is subject to appeal to a Court of Referees, and I cannot, therefore, enter into the merits of these particular cases. I should like to add, however, that special procedure has recently been put into operation with the object of making quite certain that in cases where it is proposed to transfer miners to other districts, full opportunity is given to the
miners concerned or their representatives to put forward all relevant considerations with regard to housing accommodation or otherwise before a decision as to disallowance of benefit is reached.

Mr. BECKETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the secretary of the Fanny Pit Miners' Lodge went to the Employment Exchange to make the representations mentioned and was not able to secure any consideration?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I know the circumstances which are alleged on each side, but, quite obviously, the proper thing to do in a case like that is not for me to discuss the merits when the matter can be taken to the Court of Referees, and it should be taken there, I think; if they are not satisfied.

Mr. MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the arrangements that he has said refer to the transfer of workmen from one place to another apply to other married workers unemployed in one district who are asked to take employment in another district? Are they general, or do they apply only to the miners?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No. In this case they apply particularly to the miners, because it is an attempt jointly, in co-operation with the Miners' Federation, to try to see that where transfers take place it should be done, as I say, together with them, in order that within the same district the miners, first of all, are given the offer of employment, and when they are exhausted inside the district, every preference should be given, in the case of those coming from a distance, to those coming from places where unemployment among miners is most acute. That is possible with the Miners' Federation, and I should be glad to consider it with any other body, if possible.

Mr. BATEY: Will the Minister tell us whether he has made inquiries as to what number of empty houses there are at Doncaster, and if there are any at all now or have been during the last 12 months, seeing that hundreds of miners have had their benefit stopped?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have made inquiries, but I think it would be distinctly wrong of me to prejudice a case before it has gone to what is the Appeal Court. I have made inquiries.

Mr. BATEY: Should I be justified in saying that there has not been one empty house?

Mr. BECKETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many Yorkshire miners already unemployed who might go to Doncaster, and that this appears to be merely an excuse for refusing them benefit?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not aware of that at all.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in all these South Yorkshire mining districts the average number of families in each house is between two and three?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: In most of the new mining districts, putting it generally, housing is one of the most acute difficulties—I am now talking generally and not as regards Doncaster specially—and that is one of the reasons for trying to make this new arrangement which we have tried to set up.

UNSWEETENED TABLE WATERS DUTY.

Mr. GROTRIAN: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of revenue produced during the last 13 months by the duty on unsweetened table waters and the approximate cost of collecting that revenue?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The approximate net amount of revenue collected on unsweetened table waters for the 12 months ended on 28th February, 1925, was £ 408,000. The collection of this revenue is performed by officers of Customs and Excise in conjunction with other work. The precise cost of collection cannot, therefore, be ascertained, but so far as an estimate can be made, the cost is in the neighbourhood of 1 per cent. of the amount collected.

Mr. GROTRIAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the abolition of the tax, which produces a negligible amount of revenue with a maximum amount of irritation?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot admit that £ 408,000 is a negligible amount of revenue, nor can I admit that the maximum of irritation is represented by a cost of 1 per cent. of the revenue so collected.

NATIONAL DEBT.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 64.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the reasons which have led this year to an increase in the charge for interest, etc., on the National Debt, over that estimated at the time of the introduction of the Budget?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I must ask my hon. Friend to await the Budget statement.

REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE RETURN.

Mr. WILLIAMS: 65.
also asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can arrange in the weekly revenue and expenditure return for the expenditure on supply services to be analysed under the respective headings of Army, Navy, Air Force, Civil Services and Revenue Departments?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. Owing to the pooling of balances with the Paymaster-General, the issues for each Department do not over short periods give any indication of the actual expenditure of the Department and an analysis of the kind asked for in the question would be merely misleading. The figures are analysed as far as possible in the quarterly returns.

ANGLO-IRISH TREATY (ARTICLE 5).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 66.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury is preparing any financial statement in connection with Article 5 of the Anglo-Irish Treaty?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am not clear what kind of statement the hon. and gallant Member has in mind. The formulation of the British claim under Article 5 of the Treaty is under consideration.

SINGAPORE BASE (AIR DEFENCES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 74.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what air defences will be necessary for the protection of the proposed new Singapore base; what will be their cost; and when the necessary work will be commenced?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major Sir Philip Sassoon): The question is under consideration, but some time must elapse before any decisions are-reached.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that there are no air defences at all at Singapore at the present moment, and that we are embarking upon the construction of a great naval base there? How is that?

Captain BRASS: Is it not a fact that the Fleet Air Arm is perfectly capable of looking after the defences of Singapore?

Sir P. SASSOON: My answer is that the whole matter is under consideration and that no decisions have yet been reached. I presume that they will be reached with all the speed that is consonant with all the necessary care being taken.

Mr. DALTON: Are there air defences in existence there, or not?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

IRISH PRISONERS.

Mr. LANSBURY: 75.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that Sean Flood, a prisoner held in this country on behalf of the Northern Government of Ireland, is now lying in the Royal Edinburgh Infirmary in a very bad state of health, and what sentence has been passed on this man, and what is actually his present condition of health?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I regret that in my reply to the hon. Member's question en the 3rd instant it was stated that Sean Flood was then in Peterhead Prison, whereas he had been temporarily transferred a few days previously to Edinburgh Royal Infirmary to be treated for a discharging ear. Flood was sentenced at Enniskillen Assizes on the 13th March, 1922, to 10 years' penal servitude. As regards Flood's health, there is a history of a discharging ear which dates from a period prior to his admission to Peterhead. In Edinburgh Royal Infirmary he has been treated for this by a specialist, who found on examination that no operation was necessary. Flood also has enlarged neck glands, which are tuberculosis in nature; these have been examined by a surgeon, whose opinion is that they should not be treated surgically at the present time; they will receive medical treatment at Peterhead. The medical report on Flood states that he looks and expresses himself as being very well, and
he is now almost ready for discharge from the infirmary.

Mr. LANSBURY: What official gave the information that this man was in Peterhead Prison and in excellent health, as stated in answer to my question?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am responsible for the answer that was given, and I regret the inaccuracy.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware it is within the cognisance of the House that someone has been supplied with that information, and how comes it that the official who gave the right hon. Gentleman the information to give to this House gives the right hon. Gentleman information which is absolutely untrue, and which he ought to have known was untrue?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I must assume full responsibility. I regret that, on looking through the list, as I did personally, I neglected to observe that the man had been transferred within a few days, and, having made subsequent inquiry, I found that he was transferred only a few days before.

SHERIFF-SUBSTITUTES.

Dr. SHIELS: 76.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if, in making the appointment of any new salaried sheriff-substitute in Scotland, he will keep in mind Section 12 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, 1907, which provides that the qualification is that of advocate or law agent of five years' standing; and will he seriously consider whether an eligible law agent should not be appointed?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The claims of all eligible candidates—whether law agents or advocates—for the office of Sheriff-Substitute are, and will be, duly considered.

Dr. SHIELS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are over 3,000 law agents and advocates in Scotland, and only about 200 of them are members of the Faculty of Advocates, and that these appointments are given invariably to the members of the Faculty of Advocates?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I can only say the respective claims of the applicants are very fully considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONES, RURAL AREAS.

Lieut-Colonel ACLAIMD-TROYTE: 77.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is prepared to assist the agricultural interests by an extension of the telephone system in rural areas and by making a reduction in the charges in these areas?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): New rural exchanges are opened as soon as a minimum of eight subscribers is forthcoming. During the last three years, 668 rural exchanges have been opened under this system, and 78 more have been authorised. Special facilities are also offered to farmers and others for the co-operative use of party lines in rural districts. The loss on these services has to be borne by the general body of subscribers, and I regret that I cannot at present see my way to propose further reductions in the charges for service in rural areas; but the matter is engaging my constant and careful consideration.

WIRELESS LICENCES (FEES).

Captain FRASER: 78.
asked the Postmaster-General if, considering that in the year 1923-2-1 his Department made a profit of £ 20,000 odd in the administration of broadcast licences, and at the same time collected in advance during this period a large amount of money in respect of licences partly current during the financial year 1924-25, and considering also the increase' in licence payers during the last few months, he will reduce broad-case licence fees from his share of the proceeds, without affecting the sum per licence payable to the British Broad casting Company or, alternatively, will indicate to the House what he proposes to do with present and future profits?

—
British other than Lascars.
Foreign.
Lascars.



1920.
1921.
1922.
1920.
1921.
1922.
1920.
1921.
1922.


From Pneumonia
3.7
3.2
2.4
6.6
5.1
4.3
12.1
11.6
7.6


From Phthisis
1.6
1.1
2.0
5.9
1.3
5.2
6.2
4.7
5.6


From All other Diseases
25.0
18.0
18.4
38.8
26.0
25.1
43.6
31.0
27.3


From Accidents and Injuries of all kinds.
27.4
27.7
32.8
52.6
51.9
36.3
12.9
20.0
37.8


NOTE.—For the purposes of this table the sum of the number of persons engaged for the first crew of each merchant vessel employed during the year has been taken as the number of persons employed. The calculations are based on the numbers in each of the three classes.

Viscount WOLMER: The portion of the; licence fee retained by the Post Office is 2s. 6d., against which has to be placed the cost of collection, issue and administration generally. There is at present a reasonable margin, but i am not prepared to say that it would be sufficient in itself to justify any appreciable reduction in the licence fee. The possibility of reducing the fee, as the number of licence-holders increases, will, however, not be lost sight of.

Captain FRASER: May I ask the Noble Lord to give me an answer to the last part of the question?

Viscount WOLMER: I have said that we will not lose sight of the possibility of reducing the licence fee, whenever the financial position allows.

MERCANTILE MARINE (DEATHS).

Dr. SHIELS: 79.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the crude death rates in the merchant marine of British, of foreign, and of Lascar seamen from pneumonia, from phthisis, from all other diseases, and from accidents and injuries of all kinds for each of the three years 1920, 1921, and 1922?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): The answer contains a table of figures, and the hon. Member will perhaps allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the reply:
The following statement shows the rates per 10,000 persons employed, of deaths recorded as having been due to the causes specified below, among seamen in the mercantile marine of the United Kingdom, during each of the years 1920-1922:

FROZEN BEEF (RE-EXPORTS).

Mr. BARNES: 80.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will verify the quantity and value of frozen beef re-exported during February, as given in the monthly statement of trade, which shows the price of frozen beef for export to be less than 30s. per cwt., whereas the current quotations on the home market range from 43s. 2d. to 67s. 8d. per cwt.?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): I am informed that the value of the re-exports of frozen beef during February, published in the Accounts of Trade and Navigation for that month, corresponds with the declarations made to the Customs by exporters. It is stated that the frozen beef exported during the month included consignments of inferior quality at less than current home prices for average qualities.

Mr. BARNES: Arising out of the reply, may I ask the Minister if he can vouch for, and what steps have been taken to verify, the accuracy of the statements of the exporters?

Mr. SAMUEL: I have looked up the Customs Laws Act. Section 67 puts u penalty upon persons who make a false declaration or return, and we can deal with it. If the Board of Trade suspected anything unworthy being done, the persons suspected could be proceeded against, and punished if an offence were proved against them.

Mr. BARNES: May I suggest that further inquiries be made into these figures?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

EASTER RECESS.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask, first of all, what Orders the Government propose to take after suspending the 11 o'clock Rule to-day?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Orders which it is necessary to get at this time of the year under the financial arrangements—the Navy Votes, that is, to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair, and Votes A, 1, 10 and 2 in Committee; the Ways and Means Resolution, which the right hon. Gentleman knows is purely formal, and the Third Reading of the Trade Facilities Bill.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform us when he intends to proceed with the Forestry Bill, which has disappeared from the Order Paper for the past week?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot answer that question at all definitely, but we hope to make progress with it before the Adjournment for Easter.

Mr. MacDONALD: Might we know what business is intended to be taken next week, and, at the same time, would it be convenient to make any announcement about Easter?

The PRIME MINISTER: Monday, we shall consider the Navy and Army Estimates on the Report stage.
Tuesday, Consolidated Fund Bill, Second Reading. A Debate will take place on the Geneva Protocol.
Wednesday, Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Continuance) Bill; Continuation and conclusion of the Debate on the Second Reading, and, if time permit, other Orders on the Paper. At 8.15 p.m., Private Members' Motions.
Thursday, Lords Amendments to the British Sugar (Subsidy) Bill. Consolidated Fund Bill, Third Reading.
In order to allow an uninterrupted Debate on Tuesday next, on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, I propose to put down a Motion to take Private Members' time that evening.
With regard to the Easter Holidays, we propose taking the Adjournment on Thursday, 9th April, and I hope it may not be necessary to ask the House to reassemble until Tuesday, the 28th.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: May I ask whether the Budget will be taken on the day of reassembly?

The PRIME MINISTER: As at present advised, yes.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is the House to understand that the right hon. Gentleman expects to get the Third Reading of the Trade Facilities Bill to-night?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 281: Noes, 133.

Division No. 51.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Eden, Captain Anthony
Loder, J. de V.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Looker, Herbert William


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Lougher, L.


Albery, Irving James
Ellis, R. G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Elvedon, Viscount
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
England, Colonel A.
Lumley, L. R.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
MacAndrew, Charles Glen


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Everard, W. Lindsay
MacIntyre, Ian


Astor, Viscountess
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Atkinson, C.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Macquisten, F. A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fermoy, Lord
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fielden, E. B.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. steel


Balniel, Lord
Finburgh, S.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fleming, D. P.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Forestier-Walker, L.
Margesson, Captain D.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Forrest, W.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Meyer, Sir Frank


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Berry, Sir George
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Bethell, A.
Gates, Percy
Mitchell, Sir w. Lane (Streatham)


Betterton, Henry B.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gee, Captain R.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Blundell, F. N.
Goff, Sir Park
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gower, Sir Robert
Murchison, C. K.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Grace, John
Nelson, Sir Frank


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A
Grant, J. A.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Brass, Captain W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Gretton, Colonel John
Nuttall, Ellis


Briggs, J. Harold
Grotrian, H. Brent
Oakley, T,


Briscoe, Richard George
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pease, William Edwin


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Pennefather, Sir John


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hammersley, S. S.
Penny, Frederick George


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hanbury, C.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Harland, A.
Perring, William George


Burman, J. B.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Hartington, Marquess of
Philipson, Mabel


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pitcher, G.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Haslam, Henry C.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Campbell, E. T.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Radford, E. A.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ralne, W.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Ramsden, E.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Rawlinson. Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hilton, Cecil
Remnant, Sir James


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Christie, J. A.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Holland, Sir Arthur
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Clarry, Reginald George
Homan, C. W. J.
Ropner, Major L.


Clayton, G. C.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Ruggles Brise, Major E. A.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rye, F. G.


Cockerill. Brigadier-General G. K.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Salmon, Major I.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Huntingfield, Lord
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hurd, Percy A.
Sandeman. A. Stewart


Cooper, A. Duff
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cope, Major William
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl'S)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Couper, J. B.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Savery, S. S.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W)


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jephcott, A. R.
Shepperson, E. W.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)


Crook, C. W.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kindersley, Major Guy-M.
Smithers, Waldron


Dalkeith, Earl of
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Daiziel, Sir Davison
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd. Hemel Hempst'd)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Lamb, J. Q.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Drewe, C.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Duckworth, John
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.
Warrender, Sir Victor
Wolmer, Viscount


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Womersley, W. J.


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Tasker, Major H. Inigo
Watts, Dr. T,
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Templeton, W. P.
Wells. S. R.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Tinne, J. A.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Turton, Edmund Russborough
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)



Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Waddington, R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Colonel Gibbs and Captain Douglas Hacking.


Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Wise, Sir Fredric

BILLS PRESENTED.

SANDWICH PORT AND HAVEN BILL,

"to provide for the conservancy, regulation, management, and improvement of the Port and Haven of Sandwich; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. GUINNESS; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 114.]

CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL,

"to amend the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1914," presented by Mr. GUINNESS; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 115.]

TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL,

"to make provision with respect to the grant of superannuation allowances and gratuities to teachers, and to persons employed in the control or supervision of teachers, and to their legal personal representatives, and to amend the Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898, and the School Teachers (Superannuation) Acts, 1918 to 1924," presented by Lord EUSTACE PERCY; supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Duchess of Atholl; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 116.]

BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHEME (WINCHESTER, CHRIST'S HOSPITAL SCHOOL FOUNDATION) CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a scheme approved and certified by the Board of Education under the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, relating to Christ's Hospital School Foundation, in the city of Winchester," presented by the Duchess of ATHOLL; supported by Lord Eustace Percy; to be read a Second time union Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 117.]

PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES REPORTS.

Special Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee in Session 1924, and Appendices, brought up, and read.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. FREDERICK HALL reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Lieut.-Colonel Henderson; and had appointed in substitution: Lieut.-Colonel Gault.

Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the regulation of the manufacture, sale, and importation of vaccines, sera, and other therapeutic substances." [Therapeutic Substances Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the exemption, in certain circumstances, of foreign ships and British ships registered outside the United Kingdom from certain provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts." [Merchant Shipping (Equivalent Provisions) Bill [Lords.]

Indian Affairs,—That they communicate that they have come to the following Resolution, namely: "That it is desir-
able that a Standing Joint Committee on Indian Affairs of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to examine and report on any Bill or matter referred to them specifically by either House of Parliament, and to consider with a view to reporting, if necessary, thereon any matter relating to Indian Affairs brought to the notice of the Committee by the Secretary of State for India."

LOCAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE.

Special Report from the Local Legislation Committee, with Minutes of Proceeding of Session 1924, brought up, and read.

Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings of Session 1924 to be printed.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. TURTON reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. Short to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Guardianship of Infants Bill); Sir Robert Hamilton to Standing Committee B (in respect of the China Indemnity (Application) Bill); Mr. Turton to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Theatrical Employers' Registration Bill and in respect of the Summer Time Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP A).

Mr. HOPKINS reported from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at Two of the Clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP B).

Sir ARTHUR SHIRLEY BENN reported from the Committee on Group B of Private Bilk; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at Eleven of the Clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1925-26.

Order for Committee read.

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
I am afraid that I have not got anything very sensational to say to the House. The fact that this Estimate contains no provision for new construction takes away a great deal of the interest which usually attaches to occasions of this kind, and I think the House already knows that it has been decided to refer to a Committee, for report to the Cabinet, the whole question of the programme of replacement of cruisers and other warships, as I believe hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were going to have done if they had remained in office, so as to draw up a programme spread over a certain number of years and thus secure a steady list of replacement work. I need hardly say that for my own part I would much have preferred to have had one bite at the cherry, instead of two, but I do not think it is unreasonable that a Government, coming into office within the last few months, should desire to take a rather full survey of the present situation and circumstances before committing themselves and the House to a long programme of building construction. But, as the Prime Minister said this afternoon, the Cabinet decision will be reached in time to allow of a Supplementary Estimate being introduced before the close of the summer, and therefore those who may have had apprehension that this Committee meant indefinite postponement need not have any fear on that score.

INCREASED EXPENDITURE.

It may appear at first sight that an increase in the Vote of £ 4,700,000 is rather alarming, but I hope to be able to convince the House that in arriving at this figure we have had regard, and very careful regard, to economy, so far as it is compatible with complete efficiency. I am sure that the House would not wish that in the provision for our naval service we should do anything but consider
efficiency first. It is only fair to say that of this increase of £ 4,700,000 a very considerable amount is not an increase to the taxpayer, but merely a transfer to this Vote from other services. For the first time, there appears in the Navy Estimates a charge for the Fleet Air arm of £ 1,320,000. This charge previously has been borne on the Air Vote, and it is exactly the same sum as was put down last year. Therefore, that is merely a transfer from one Vote to another without any difference to the pocket of the taxpayer. The same may be said of another smaller sum of £ 50,000 which we bear this time for experimental work which we do with the War Office at Shoeburyness, and which previously has been borne on their Vote. That means that you have to deduct £ 1,370,000 from the total increase of £ 4,700,000 in order to make a fair comparison, and the true figure of the increase, therefore, is £ 3,330,000, which I hope to be able satisfactorily to account for to the House.

There are certain automatic and inevitable increases which I have to bear on the Estimates this year, and I think the House would like to know what they are. First of all, there is an increase due to wages awards of £ 620,000. There is a reduced quantity of war stores to be drawn upon without replacement, which accounts for another £ 622,000. It means that the stores which accumulated during the war are becoming exhausted, and there are not now stores left to be drawn upon except such as have to be subsequently replaced. There is no surplus. Then, again, I anticipate smaller appropriations-in-aid to the extent of £ 280,000. There is an increase in the non-effective Vote of £ 155,000, again automatic, and there are automatic increases in Navy pay and the men's marriage allowance of £ 178,000. Lastly, there is an increase in Vote A for men required for the ships already laid down of £ 251,000. This makes the total of automatic and inevitable increases £ 2,106,000, which, again, in order to make a fair comparison, I think you must deduct from the £ 3,330,000. On the other hand, it is only fair to say that we save £ 580,000 by not having to pay annuity in respect of the Naval Works Loan, which has had to be paid in previous years. There, therefore, remains £ 1,804,000 increase beyond what I have already mentioned. I should like,
if the House will be good enough to allow me, to remind it of what my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Amery) said when he was moving this Resolution two years ago, and when he introduced estimates amounting to £ 58,000,000. He used these words:
I should be failing in my duty to this House and to the country if I suggested the possibility of further reduction in our strength in succeeding years. On the contrary, I must ask the House to keep clearly in mind that these are exceptional Estimates, framed to meet an exceptional financial situation, and that the economies which we have achieved are, in part at any rate, due to the postponement of the necessary expenditure which will have to be made up with the return to more normal conditions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March, 1923; cols. 1090-1, Vol. 161.]
That makes it very clear that he then anticipated what has actually happened. He anticipated that by following a policy of reducing expenditure to the lowest point he was preparing for his successors a future increase. That is not all, because, although, as he said then, he had cut the Estimates to the bone, the following year the party opposite, when they were in power, not content with the cut to the bone, cut very considerably below the bone. Although the Colonial Secretary then presented Estimates amounting to £ 58,000,000, the Estimates of the party opposite were reduced to £ 55,800,000, including £ 1,800,000 for new construction. It will be seen that the legacy which I have inherited from both my predecessors has put me in the unfortunate position of, having to make up in this year what they over-reduced, as I think, in previous years.

I now come to the increases which cannot be described exactly as automatic, but which arc, I think, inevitable. We have to spend £ 190,000 on the beginning of a retubing programme for cruisers and destroyers that were built during the War. There are a large number of them which will become due to be retubed almost simultaneously, and it was thought more economical to spread this work of retubing over a longer time, and so we have provided £ 190,000 for it this year. The position of our Fleet at Malta has rendered an increased staff there necessary, and the cost of the increased staff in foreign waters is £ 163,000. Then new dockyard machinery to the extent of
£104,000 is necessary. I think nobody will grudge that, because it must mean greater efficiency and probably a saving in the future. We have increased requirements for material—again partly due to the depletion of stocks of material—£ 352,000, and increased requirements for Sea Stores—again partly due to depletion—£ 328,000. We have got to spend £ 216,000 on torpedo and fire control, and for new special apparatus. There have been great advances in scientific discoveries connected with warships in the last few years, and it is absolutely necessary—indeed, it is all-important—for our Fleet that we should be up to date in all the latest scientific appliances for defence as well as for attack. Then we have to complete the reserve of ammunition which requires £ 53,000, and we have got to overhaul fuses and powder cases for safety's sake, costing £ 88,000. We have also inserted a provision of £ 350,000 for officers' marriage allowances.

Viscountess ASTOR: Hear, hear!

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I shall have something to say on that later, if my Noble Friend will have patience. There are other increases amounting to £ 230,000, and that brings the amount up to £ 2,074,000. In fairness I must deduct from that sum £ 270,000, which is reduced expenditure on ships actually under construction. That brings the total net increase to £ 1,804,000, which exactly accounts for the total increase, together with the items I have mentioned before. That, I think, is the least we could possibly do. There are many things I should like to have done which, for reasons of economy, we have not done, and I am not sure that even now I am not placing myself in the position that both my predecessors occupied, of postponing some things which it would have been much better to face at once. At any rate, I feel that I shall be fully justified by the House in proposing the figures that I am proposing to-day.

PERSONNEL.

I come now to Vote A, in which we have an increase of 2,175 men. That, again, is a very good instance of what I inherited from the hon. Gentleman opposite. When he spoke in the House on this Motion last year, he said:
For reasons of economy, it has been left until the latest possible moment com-
patible with having crews available when the ships are ready.
That is, the provision under Vote A,
Not only so, but instead of entering the full number of 3,200, we had decided to recruit only 1,400, and to obtain the remaining 1,800 by pruning them from the complements of other ships."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1924: cols. 275-6, Vol. 171.]
I do not ask him to apologise, I am only glad to see that he thinks I have quoted him faithfully from the OFFICIAL REPORT. He stated they were pruning 1,800 from other ships instead of taking them on for training, and therefore it is obvious he left it for me to provide those 1,800 men. and that adds to the cost which I have to put before the House. I have also got to add a few more, 375, a very modest number, to help to provide the men to train for the ships which will be completed later. I should like to say, on the subject of Vote A, that here again I have cut the figures to a dangerously low margin. I do not wish to draw any comparison about armaments between ourselves and other countries, but, to show what other countries think necessary for the manning of their fleet, I should like to say that whereas we require 102,675 men the United States require 115,319. Therefore, I think it will be hard to say we are not economical in the manning of our Fleet.

CONSTRUCTION.

With regard to construction, I think the House would like to know what has been done. In the last year, that is, the year that ends this month, 1924-25, one cruiser, "Frobisher," has been completed, two flotilla leaders, "Broke" and "Keppel," three destroyers, "Shikari," "Whitehall" and "Witch," and there submarines "L23," "L53" and "L54." "X1" is now completing her trials, and will be soon ready for service. In 1925-26, the next financial year, we expect that three cruisers "Effingham," "Emerald" and "Enterprise," will be completed, and two submarines, "L26" and "L27." In the following year, in all probability, the two battleships "Rodney" and "Nelson" will be completed—that is the year 1926-27; and the year after that the five County cruisers which the party opposite laid down, should be completed.

WASHINGTON CONVENTION (TONNAGE SCRAPPED).

I think I ought to tell the House what has been done to fulfil our obligations under the Washington Convention, under which we had to scrap a large amount of tonnage. All the obligations under the Washington Convention have been carried out, and carried out by the date at which we undertook to do it. Not only did we begin to fulfil our obligations before other countries, I think, but we have completed them, not without difficulty, in advance of the proper date. "Agamemnon" and "Colossus" have been made incapable of war-like service; one has become a target ship and the other is a stationary training ship; "Australia" and "Monarch" have been sunk at sea; and 18 more ships, of 400,000 tons aggregate, have been sold and broken up in this country.

VOCATIONAL TRAINING.

It is very difficult, with all the different subjects which come under this Vote, to select those which seem most likely to be of interest to the House, but I think the House will be interested to know that we are proposing this year to start reference libraries, for the benefit of the men who wish to improve their education, in 70 ships and establishments on shore.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We have had ships' libraries for 100 years.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: These are rather more convenient forms of reference libraries than those to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers. Then there is another scheme, started not by us but by our predecessors, for vocational training, which I am glad to say has met with a considerable amount of success, especially in view of the difficulties of getting the men at suitable times, getting a sufficient number of men in a class, and generally making arrangements so that they could receive the propeT course. The scheme, however, has certainly been a success up to now, and we propose to go on with it, and hope to find some way of extending it still further. The object, of course, is to prepare men whose time in the Service is nearly up for taking employment when they leave, by giving them a short training in various different kinds of service, one is called "handy man training," which trains a man in a
lot of small ways, and we give other and more elaborate training in particular trades. Up to now, 792 men have either qualified or are undergoing a. course, out of about 2,000 men who are to be discharged and pensioned in the course of the year. I hope we shall be able still further to develop this vocational training, because I think it is very much appreciated, and is of great use to those who are going on pension on leaving the naval service.

SPECIAL SERVICE SQUADRON.

With regard to Fleet exercises, no manoeuvres on any large scale have taken place, or are going to take place this year, beyond the ordinary short sea exercises. I think I ought to say a word about the Special Service Squadron, which not Ions ago returned from its Empire tour, a tour which, according to all accounts, is admitted to have been a great success in many different directions. It was very fitting, I think, that at a time when we in this country were able to see at Wembley all the developments of our great Empire, its resources, its power and its products, the people of the Empire in their turn should have a glimpse of that great peaceful force, the Navy, on which the security of their trade and ours depends so much. They had the opportunity also, I think, of seeing how much the Mother Country has to pay for the benefit and security of Imperial trade, and certain things have happened, which I shall refer to later, which show, I think, that the effect of that tour has been to make some of our Dominions realise what a heavy burden the Mother Country is bearing in this respect, and to show that as they grow and increase in prosperity, they are prepared, or will be prepared, to take upon themselves some share or larger share of the cost.

Another most satisfactory point was the universal recognition we have had from every quarter of the orderly and splendid conduct of the men whenever they went on shore in all parts of the world. Only this morning I had a message from the Commander-in-Chief of the Atlantic Fleet to say that when they were at Algiers, 14,000 men went on leave, only 15 broke leave, and not one was "run in" by the police. That is a very fine record. It was very interesting, too, that in return for this visit of the British
squadron to Australia, it should be accompanied on its homeward journey by a cruiser, "Adelaide," belonging to the Royal Australian Navy, which we were very glad to welcome here in return for the hospitality we have received from the Australians. Later on I will refer to the response that some of our Dominions and Colonies have made towards the upkeep Of our naval force.

DOCKYARDS.

As to the Dockyards, I have not yet had time to explore the situation very fully. My time has been largely taken up with polite conversations with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [Laughter.] There have been one or two. I hope to study the question further, but I do feel there must be some possibility of improving the opportunities for both physical and mental recreation amongst those who are employed in our Dockyards. I am not the first person who thought of that, and there are a great many difficulties in the way, but I cannot help feeling we might be able to do more to make their recreation easy and extensive, and I shall try very hard to see what can be done in that direction. The great difficulty is because of the situation of the Dockyards, but I do think it would be possible to do something to improve their opportunities for healthy recreation.

FLEET AIR ARM.

I come to the Fleet Air Arm. This expenditure is the same as last year. I think it was in October last year that the Government, in the last days of its existence, decided that the cost of this arm should be on our vote as a grant-in-aid to the Air Ministry, and by that condition we have so far been guided as to the relations between the two Services. It is for us to set the requirements we want, and for the Air Mini-try to arrange to supply them. That was explained by the Secretary of State for Air on the Air Estimates. Their object is, as an integral part of the Fleet, to operate in any geographical position where there maybe a sea fight, and to assist in protecting shipping against aircraft and other forms of attack. The personnel will consist of naval and air officers. The estimated cost will be £ 1,320,000, and this will be devoted to maintenance charges, pay of
personnel, and the provision of material to complete the establishment and reserve. The sum of £ 109,800 is set aside to meet part of the cost of 24 war aircraft to be ready for "Glorious" and "Courageous" when they commission later on.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: In regard to the control of the combined operation of the seaplanes and aircraft carriers who would be in command I Would the air officer be in command or would the Admiralty and the Naval officer be in command?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not quite sure that I can answer that question. The Prime Minister has recently stated that the question was still under consideration with regard to the details between the two Services, but I think I am right in saying that if it was a naval engagement the naval officer would be in command.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: That is a very important point. Am I to understand that under present conditions if we went to war the Government do not know who, under those conditions, is going to be in control?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman should understand that. I said that if it were a naval action the naval officer would be in command.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: The right hon. Gentleman said that so far as the Admiralty are concerned they were being guided by the decisions of the Balfour Committee. Has the right hon. Gentleman contemplated any variation of that?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot at this point be drawn into a discussion of the whole subject. Up to now we have proceeded as before, but that does not preclude us from reconsidering the question. I think the Prime Minister said this afternoon that he was not prepared to give a definite answer as to the relative position of the two Services.

Mr. AMMON: Was it not stated definitely that the Admiralty should have control?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Or. that point there are certain matters left very obscure. I am most anxious that the
relations between the two Services should be as friendly as possible, and I am Dot going to be goaded into saying anything that may be offensive. I believe it is quite possible, by friendly arrangements, to settle the matter between us, and I am quite sure it is not possible to do it if one Department is going to be perpetually urged to fight with the other. I do not say that the present arrangement is ideal, but I believe that we can come to something better, and we should try to do so by as friendly arrangements as possible. The present strength of the Air Fleet Arm is 105. There are 24 spotting machines and 27 reconnaissance machines, 36 fighters, and 18 torpedo bombers. That is sufficient to equip the "Argus," the "Hermes," "Eagle," and "Furious"; and there are 12 fighters for battleships and cruisers. The total strength by the end of 1925-26 will be increased by 24, and in personnel by the end of 1925-26 it should be 241 officers and 1,021 men; 34 officers have been trained, and 14 are under training now, and eventually we hope that 70 per, cent. of the pilots and 100 per cent. of the observers will be naval.

OFFICERS' MARRIAGE ALLOWANCES.

With regard to marriage allowance for officers, this is a subject which has been before the House for a considerable time, and great sympathy has been shown for the proposal that marriage allowances should be given to naval officers. The present position is that the Admiralty have put up what they believe to be a strong case in favour of marriage allowances being granted. That case has been submitted to the Co-ordinating Committee now sitting, which I hope will shortly report to the Cabinet. There has been a little mistake in some quarters as to the sum which is allowed in the Estimates for this purpose. The sum of £ 431,000 appears in one part of the Estimates, but that is not entirely for the marriage allowances of naval officers; it includes the men. We have calculated roughly that the cost will be about £ 350,000 for naval officers' allowance if our proposals are accepted toy the Co-ordinating Committee. The rest is for the men.

Mr. AMMON: Is that normal increase?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes. I want to make it quite clear that, much as I
sympathise with the appeal for marriage allowances for officers, it is not quite true to say that the thing is yet a "fait accompli."

Viscountess ASTOR: What!

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The actual amount, depends on the decision of the Cabinet after receiving the Report of the Co-ordinating Committee. We have put our case as strongly as we can, and I am very hopeful of success.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is there a woman on the Co-ordinating Committee?

SINGAPORE BASE.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am afraid I am not at liberty to divulge the personnel. There is one other subject to which I wish to refer—the Singapore base. As announced in the King's Speech, we have decided to proceed with the provision of a dock at Singapore, and one at which the largest vessels will be capable of being docked and repaired. The site has been very carefully investigated for several years past, and we have gone through it again in the last few months, and the preponderating evidence is in favour of the dock being placed in the Old Strait between the island and the peninsula of Johore. The programme so far decided upon is to set a floating dock in the Old Strait, and it will take about. three years to complete.
Several hon. Members yesterday put questions down upon this subject, and they were kind enough to allow me to say that I would deal with them in the course of this Debate. I hope I shall be able to give them the information they require in what I am now going to say. The floating dock which we are going to make use of is one of the German floating docks which came into our possession, and it is now at Portsmouth. The exact size has not yet been settled, but it is going to be large enough to dock battleships of the largest size. For that purpose this dock will have to be extended, and a certain sum will be required for that purpose.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the work of extending this dock to be done before it leaves this country or at Singapore?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Most of it will have to be done before it leaves this coun-
try. With regard to the full programme including the graving dock, the matter is still under consideration. I was asked yesterday to give the cost of the full programme. It was originally estimated to cost £ 11,000,000, and that was to include the floating dock and the graving dock and all the necessary complements to that. The graving dock itself was to cost £ 1,200,000, included in that sum. But we are going again into the whole question of the graving dock, both its extent and the buildings attached to it, and the time which should be spent over its building, and, at any rate, nothing can be done to begin it for a year or two from now.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: So that so far as. expenditure on the dock is concerned, its suspension by the late Government has saved money and enabled you further to consider the matter?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is not correct to say you have saved money, because some of it had to be wasted, but the amount required to be spent at Singapore on the floating dock, getting it into its place, making the necessary roads, moorings and so on, is estimated to cost £ 787,000, to be finished in three years. Those figures, which were given in the House of Lords, I think were not understood by some people to refer merely to the expense at Singapore. The floating dock has to have extensions made to it which will cost altogether £ 310,000, and there is a certain sum provided in our Estimates for supervising staff to supervise the work as it proceeds. The figure given for the cost of Singapore during the year of which we are speaking was £ 204,000, but. we have provided in the Estimates for £ 250,000, for two reasons. The first is that whatever we spend this year will only be deducted from the expenditure in future years, and therefore if we can spend up to £ 250,000 it would be an advantage. We have already got £ 250,000 for this purpose, and therefore it would be just as well to spend it if we can. [Interruption.] £ 250,000 has been contributed by Hong Kong for this purpose and for no other, so that if you do not spend it you are wasting it. That money is there ready to be spent, and we have put in the Estimates £ 250,000 in order that if we proceed fast enough we shall have made the necessary provision.

DOMINION CONTRIBUTIONS.

I should like to say how grateful we are, and I am sure the whole House is, for the public-spirited way in which Hong Kong has come forward and made the gift she has made for this purpose and also how grateful we are to the Straits Settlements for having made over the land that is necessary at a cost of £ 146,000. It is indeed gratifying that such small units of our Empire are prepared to come forward with sums so proportionately large as that. Australia and New Zealand were prepared a year ago to make their contributions to Singapore, but when the proposal was dropped they decided to spend the money they had intended for that purpose, as well as other money, on cruisers. Mr. Bruce said the other day:
Australia entered into naval commitments of £ 3,500,000 towards the construction of two 10,000-ton cruisers, two oceangoing submarines and a general defence reserve. In addition to this a defence programme was initiated covering a period of five years and in each of those years an increase of £ 1,000.000 per annum over the 1923-24 defence expenditure.
New Zealand contributed a sum towards the maintenance of a cruiser in lieu of what she had promised for Singapore. That does not preclude either of those Dominions from contributing in the future to the cost of Singapore, but it deserves from us again an expression of gratitude for the way in which they have come forward to try to bear part of their share.

Mr. AMMON: But it indicates that they have altered their mind as to the value of Singapore as far as they are concerned.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, it does not at all. On the contrary, I shall be able to show that they have not. In order to show that the Dominions are still as desirous of proceeding with the base at Singapore I do not think I can do better than quote a little more from Mr. Bruce's statement. He said on the 6th instant:
He noted with considerable concern what was apparently a very serious attempt to induce the British Government to abandon its decision with regard to Singapore. He earnestly hoped for the sake of the Empire that this would not be done.
Later on in the same statement he said:
Surrounded at every angle, we are at least entitled to be heard on the question
now and I submit that our opinion should not lightly be ignored. To Australia and New Zealand and to all the Empire in the East this base is vital. Australia, therefore, without such a base can only regard herself as deserted by the Empire.
The hon. Member asked me.

Mr. AMMON: I wanted to bring that out—

An HON. MEMBER: What is General Smuts's opinion?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: We heard General Smuts's opinion some time ago. I am not aware whether he has changed it or not, but, after all, Singapore is not of the same importance to South Africa as it is to Australia.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: South Africa is in the Empire, is it not, or are we making a mistake?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not know the relevance of that interruption. It is perfectly obvious that the base at Singapore must be of more consequence to the States in that neighbourhood than to any other.

Mr. THOMAS: Do I gather that the right hon. Gentleman has quoted Mr. Bruce, as showing the important view that Australia takes of that question? Is it not true to say that, although you have quoted his contribution, the Australian and New Zealand Governments, so far as the monetary consideration is concerned, are less favourable than they were two years ago?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Because they have devoted the money intended for Singapore to building cruisers. [An HON. MEMBER: "They thought they were of much more use!"] Perhaps they are. Both are very useful. At any rate, £ 3,500,000 is a very considerable sum for them to provide. Lastly he says:
We cannot, situated as we are, ignore the fact that the British Navy is the sole guarantee we have of safety, but is the most potent force in existence for the promotion of universal justice and peace, and unless it is rendered efficient and its mobility assured by the provision of an adequate base in the Pacific, the existence and prestige of the Empire will be imperilled, the peace of the world endangered and the authority of the League of Nations undermined.
I think it is tolerably clear that Mr. Bruce at any rate thinks the position at Singapore of as much importance now as when he was over here.
5.0 P.M.
Some people have seen in this movement a menace to Japan. I am unable to understand that point of view at all. Everyone knows that this country—not any one Government, but all Governments—have enjoyed and valued the friendship and alliance with Japan, that we value it still, and we still believe there is no reason to suppose that friendship is in any way dulled. We have ourselves no kind of desire for aggression. It is the very last thing we should think of. If we had wished to menace Japan why should we, in the Washington Treaty, have decided not to strengthen the Fortifications of Hong Kong? Singapore is very nearly 3,000 miles from Yokohama—about the same distance as Plymouth is from New York. I have never heard—I do not know whether the Noble Lady has—that the maintenance of the dockyard at Plymouth is a menace to New York. No official in Japan has given voice to the idea that there is anything in the nature of offence in this. All the official utterances have been quite the other way. In January, 1923. Vice-Admiral Sakomuto in a speech stated:
The construction of this base for the British Navy should be and is no cause for alarm to Japan, and attempts made to make it appeal otherwise are founded on no good reason.''
That is the official view of Japan. Here is another. Pear-Admiral Tosu, in a speech in 1923, said:
Some see in this measure a sign that England is no longer our friend. They do not realise that we would do the same if we were placed in a similar position. Official opinion, however, does not regard it in an unfavourable light and we consider that the good feeling and amity existing between our two nations are in no way incompatible with it.
So I say that official opinion in Japan certainly does not regard it as a hostile action, and I do not believe there is any other country in the world which, if it had been in our position, would have gone on so long without establishing a base there. One glance at the map shows that it is the very centre and pivot of our scattered units of Empire in the East-India, Australia, New Zealand, the Straits Settlements and Ceylon, all
within a comparatively small ambit. It is a link in the chain of our trade to the East, and if we are to continue the policy which the Admiralty has always followed of offering some protection—

Mr. DALTON: Against whom?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Against any danger I If it is our duty to offer some protection to the 80,000 miles of overseas trade routes from the Pacific to this country, and have a Fleet to defend them, surely it is also our duty to have a base which, will make that Fleet efficient? If we have a place in which no capital ships can be docked, then it means that a capital ship will have to come back to Malta, 6,000 miles one way and 6,000 miles back, in order to have any repairs done of any magnitude at all. That is not efficiency and it is not economy. This base is purely for defensive purposes. The accommodation at Singapore now is very congested, and not only for the sake of larger ships but smaller ships further accommodation is most desirable. I do feel that if we are to adopt the policy it is our duty to our overseas trade. The hon. Gentleman opposite said "protection against whom?" If we are to haven protection why have a Navy at all? Letthem be honest and say "Have no Navy!" That is one view of the question that may be taken. We have regarded it up to now as the hon. Gentlemen opposite have regarded it, as one of our duties to offer some protection, not against any known enemies, but against any risk there may be. There is no other nation like our own that is so absolutely dependent upon our overseas trade. There is no other country like our own which is so scattered all over the face of the globe, and if we are at war and unable to protect our very means of existence, all the commodities that come over that route—meat, wool and any number of important articles—[Interruption.] It is not new. The Singapore base is not new; it has been considered years and years ago. What we say is, that if you are to have a Fleet efficient and requisite, you must have a base where large ships could be docked, and where, if necessary, you can repair in a very short time ships which would otherwise take a very long time to send home and back again. I look upon this question myself as in the nature of an insurance. When you insure you do
not insure against the danger you expect; you insure against a danger which you do not know, that you cannot foresee, and in just the same way we, I think, here in this country, know what a grave peril we risk if we should lose the control of our overseas trade, the loss of the food and other materials that come over. Knowing what that risk is, we should not wilfully decline to make an insurance contribution to secure us against any risk, although we may not foresee one. If one knew exactly when one's house was going to be burnt down or when one's car was going to be upset, one could not take refuge in insurance, but if a person docs not know whether an accident is going to happen in a very short time he desires by insurance to be protected against it. The only reason why right hon. Gentlemen opposite have declined to proceed with the Singapore base was that they said it was postponing it. At the time they did not give a final decision. They were not going to entirely abandon the plan. The idea was that it was a gesture which was going to lead to some co-operation from other people. The hon. Gentleman opposite said: "We shall make a gesture in the hope that there will be some co-operation from other countries." I am not able to see exactly what co-operation this gesture has led to. The idea of co-operation seems to be in this instance rather like that described by the American who said: "Too often when you are co-operating with other people you find that the other fellows are operating and you are left doing the' cooing." It seems to me that we are still cooing and there is a good deal of operating going on. [HON. MBMBERS: "Where?"]

Sir ALFRED MOND: Has not President Coolidge offered a new naval Disarmament Conference in America?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not talking of a disarmament Conference. If there is any possibility of a disarmament Conference in which we could take part being arranged, we shall be only too glad. compatible with the security of this country, to arrange for anything that will make the burden of armaments less

Sir A. MOND: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the remarks he is
making at that Box are likely to assist the movement that is now coming from America?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have said nothing that will hinder it. Why is it that anything that we suggest about putting a big dock at Singapore is provocative-to somebody, whilst other countries build ships? I do not object. It is their own business. I do not say it is provoking this country. But we have to look at the facts, and it is a rather curious thing that the warship building programme of the world in February last year, ships either building or projected, were 228. At the same time this year the number is 352. That is an increase of more than 50 per cent. all over the whole world.

Mr. THOMAS: That is in accordance with the Washington Agreement.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: So would Singapore be in accordance with the Washington Agreement. The fact is, all over the world 352 ships are being built or projected—new ships of war, 50 per cent. more than last year.

Mr. AMMON: But they are within the terms of the Washington Treaty.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not want to go outside the Washington Treaty. Nobody does. But for anybody to talk about our being "provocative" when there are 352 warships being built in the world, while our contribution is 20, and to say that we do not want peace, is to say what they know is contrary to the feeling of everybody in this country. We have no lust of conquest, we have no desire for more territory. All we want is peace to develop the country that we have got and the trade that we have got. There is no need for a gesture to show the people of the world that Great Britain is a peaceable country. She is peaceable by nature, and she is peaceable in her own interests. What more territory can she want? What can she possibly want by war? The glamour and glory of arms has no attraction for us. We have seen too much of the misery which accompanies it, and therefore I say without any fear of contradiction that the world knows that Great Britain is peaceable, and the world will not think any better of us for making gestures which weaken the position that we are in and which would weaken us if we had to go into negotiations on dis-
armament and would not bring a response from any other country to help us in that direction.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: My right hon. Friend, especially in the former part of his speech, before he came to Singapore, was a bit careful now and again to inform the House that His Majesty's present Government are fulfilling the inheritance which they had received from His Majesty's last Government. I am not quite sure, when I hear that frequently repeated remark, whether it is meant to enable right hon. Gentlemen to get out of their difficulties, or to try to get us into the difficulties that they themselves are making. But in any event I can assure him of this, that, whether it is true or not, the right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary of State for the Colonies, paring the Naval Votes down to the bone and asking for £ 58,000,000, the last Government, asking for £ 55,000,000, gave the taxpayers far more value for their money than their predecessors gave them for £ 58,000,000.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir ALAN BURGOYNE: What of the three cruisers?

Mr. MacDONALD: Three cruisers, that were supposed to be necessary as part of the eight. Right hon. Gentlemen come here to-day and tell us they have not made up their mind how many they want for the efficiency of the Navy and the security of the Empire, Precisely the same confession was made in connection with Singapore. One of the reasons why now we are told we should support Singapore is that His Majesty's present advisers have discovered that they can produce as good an article for considerably less money than they proposed to spend 12 months ago upon it. That is exactly our position. Nobody could have come into that office, nobody could have made themselves responsible for the conduct, not only of the Admiralty but of other Departments, without having discovered that a period of examination is absolutely necessary, not merely from the point of view of national safety, but from the point of view of the interests of the taxpayers of this country. I am glad to accept, at any rate, that tribute from my right hon. Friend, that we succeeded in reducing expenditure which he now admits would have been quite useless if it had been incurred by our predecessors.
I can assure him that we did inherit a very bad state of things in the Admiralty, a condition of things which could very largely be described as rust rather than efficiency. But, unfortunately, we came in in January. I see that some of the newspapers that support His Majesty's present Government are making 0 great cry about the fact that the Government have only been in office for a few months, and, therefore, cannot be expected to produce any sort of programme that could claim anything in the nature of originality. At any rate, they have been in about two months longer than we were before we were called upon to My what we would make ourselves responsible for in this House, and I am confessing no secret, I am lifting the curtain and revealing nothing of which right hon. and hon. Members of this House are not thoroughly aware, when I say that the late Government did not have an opportunity for a proper exploration of the budget that had been prepared in the various Departments, and that (he most we could do was lo take care that we maintained efficiency and knocked off extravagance. That is the reason why we knocked off the three cruisers. The ease that was put to us seemed to us. in the very limited time that we had to examine it, to justify, perhaps, five cruisers, and we took our courage in our hands, as we should do again and do now, and asked the House to consent to the building of five cruiser?, pledging ourselves that, if we were in a position to appear before it in 12 months' time with another naval programme, we would be more responsible as; Government for our proposals than, unfortunately, we were able to be 12 months ago in the short time that we were in office.
My right hon. Friend himself is not quite sure that he is right now; he is not at all certain about his position. He tells us that he had conversations with the. Chancellor of the Exchequer. I suppose it would be vain for me to ask what those conversations amounted to, over what subjects they ranged, and with what friendliness they were conducted; but now my right hon. Friend suggests to us that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been a little too much for him, and, although he is responsible for the Admiralty, he has told us that he is not at all sure but that he is neglecting his duty
by not asking for more money than, as a matter of fact, he is going to ask for. I hope that when we succeed him, and have to hitch our policy and programme on to that which he leaves behind him, we shall not say that, in that respect, at any rate, we are following the precedents of our predecessors.
I do not propose to discuss at any length what might be called the details of the proposals that are now before us, but I think that this is an occasion when the House would occupy itself with great profit in discussing the wider features of policy. If I might say so, we listen far too much in this House to observations such as those which concluded my right hon. Friend's speech—to the effect that everybody knows that we are a pacifist people, and so are Let us come to hard business, and let us remember that naval policy and Admiralty policy is not a matter of experts. It is a matter which ought to concern this House, as the custodian of the whole body of national interests, not only in regard to what they contain, but also in regard to the manner in which they are handled. When my right hon. Friend asks, in that bland way of his which always endears him to us, however much we may disagree with him, what was the result of the gesture that was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), I think I might make a much better suggestion, if I may say so with respect, namely, the Protocol. There is not a single person who was present at Geneva but knew perfectly well that, if what my right hon. Friend calls a gesture had not been made, it would have been impossible to get the other nations to consent to a disarmament conference. I am not talking about the Protocol itself on its merits at the present moment; what I wish to direct my right hon. Friend's attention to is this, that we did get more nations than ever have agreed in the history of the world before, to meet together to discuss the problem of disarmament in an official international disarmament conference, and if it had not been for the policy of the British Government such a thing would have been absolutely impossible.
I really cannot understand why at the present time the costs of the British Navy should be so high as they are. Up
to the War, we were always told that we had rivals. Now that fleet has gone to the bottom of the sea, and, instead of rivals, we have friends. My right hon. Friend, quite rightly, laid stress upon the friendship between Japan and ourselves. No one will say for a moment that any development of the American Fleet has any significance for us whatever. There must, of course, be exceptions. Even in Sodom and Gomorrah there were one or two exceptions. When one goes into a Government Department it is not enough to imagine things. One has to take into account, not possibilities, but probabilities. It is the application of common sense. Of course, this thing might happen, that thing might happen, or the other thing might happen, but that does not justify a Minister in asking the British taxpayers to put their hands deeply into their pockets in order to make it impossible. We deal with probabilities, not with possibilities. Upon my right hon. Friend's own confession, Japan is friendly, and America is friendly. Who is hostile? What is the objective?
I am bound to say, after a very long and interesting consideration of the problem, that this idea, at any rate, has crept into my mind—I do not say it has taken possession of it—that what happens, in very many cases like this, is that someone produces a map, and someone draws on that map the trade routes, and then they say, "Now imagine a war. Do you see that point there on that map? If certain things happen, that point will be a master-point from the point of view of strategy. Therefore, let us suit national policy on the assumption that the circumstances may arise—and that very soon—which will make that point one of the master-keys in the strategy of the defence of the British Empire." That is the business of the expert. I like that. If the expert did not do that, the expert should be taken by the scruff of the neck and turned out. But when my right hon. Friend considers his duty, it is not his duty to take into account theoretical considerations or possibilities like that. He has to consider, not that particular point from the point of view of naval strategy in the event of certain things happening, but he has to consider the policy, the reaction, the politics all round the world, in the necessary distribution of his own
Fleet. If he should allow the experts' technical requirements to dominate his mind, and he is a politician—I use the word, of course, in the best sense—if he simply takes his instructions from the experts, he is not doing his duty.

Commander BELLAIRS: May I ask the right, hon. Gentleman one question? Does he contend that he can forecast the situation in regard, say, to a Power like Japan, 10 years hence?

Mr. MacDONALD: I can either say "Yes" or "No" to that. If I say "Yes," then I can give a very definite and dogmatic answer regarding Singapore. If I say "No," why should the lack of knowledge mean that the British taxpayers' money should be wasted on an escapade, upon a building programme the evil effects of which in other directions we, at any rate, know perfectly well and can be certain of beforehand? If there is a doubt, the doubt must not be put upon the side of evil. If there is a doubt, I have enough belief in human nature—I hope hon. Members will not laugh at me—to know that the man who sits in a Department in this country, say, at the Admiralty, the War Office, the Air Ministry, the Foreign Office, or at 10, Downing Street—with a vigilant eye cast day by day upon his problems, who does not yield to his lack of definite knowledge by putting his influence and his expenditure on to the side of doubtful experiment, but who holds his hand until he has made up his mind—that man is far more likely to guide our Empire through the great difficulties ahead of it than the man who simply follows the theoretical views of his experts, who have not to consider—it is not their duty to do so, and it is not right that they should—the large political issues involved in naval strategic advice.
I see no reason at the present moment why there should not be again this year, as last year, a substantial reduction in our Navy Estimates. I hope the House is not oblivious of the fact—I am sure it is not—that we are not discussing the Navy Estimates at this moment; we are only discussing the first instalment of the Navy Estimates. We are told that a Committee is sitting. We also had a Committee sitting, but, through no fault of our own, we were not able to go very far with it. We could not pursue it very
far, but, surely, as has been indicated to-day since I got up, there are some Members on the other side of the House who, at any rate on paper, are great authorities on shipbuilding, both our own and the world's, and who really sincerely believed that we did something wrong, because last year we reduced a programme of eight cruisers to a programme of five. The scheme of building asked, if my memory serves me, seven for this year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Eight."] That is one more than I thought. Eight last year and eight this year. What we decided on was five last year and five this year. If all those cruisers had been laid down, as originally contemplated, we ought to have 16 keels laid down now, including last year's, and according to the conscientious convictions of hon. Members opposite, we are already 11 keels behind.
In any event the Government do not advocate that now. They have confessed it to us. They considered this problem in 1923. We came in, and, I admit, very hurriedly looked over it, and found that five was a sufficient number for the time being until much more careful thought had been put into the policy. This question had to be considered, not merely as one of building for last year and this year, but as part of a system, and we found that five were enough. It is not altogether a matter made of cruisers. We knocked off not only three cruisers, but we knocked off certain subsidiary vessels. In 1924 we came in, and now the Government, apparently having been in office since November, and considered this question at the Admiralty and at the Treasury, have come to the conclusion that they are not prepared to stand by their 1923 programme, and the indication is that they are going to lower the figures, at any rate, which they had put forward before we came in. Could a more melancholy confession than that be made, that the Government of 1923 squandered the taxpayer's money and did not provide with efficiency and economy for the requirements which the Empire imposed upon them?
One thing, however, I can say with that dogmatic assurance which I regret I could not show to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who asked me about the developments of Japanese policy. I can say with confidence that, at the present
time, no fresh developments are justifiable. The most that can be said, the most that the strongest, most sincere, and most determined of what one might call Navy men could ask for is to hold what we have got, not increased strength—that is, strength in bulk and numbers—but that if anything is to be increased it should be efficiency. That is a very fair statement of what I hope to be the most extreme demands for the moment, of the most convinced and the most sincere Navy men. But Singapore is of a totally different character. I am not going into the question of Australian contribution, and I am not going to discuss Singapore, except in a very general and very brief way, because I think it far better—and I believe that the House will agree with me—to concentrate on Singapore in the Debate on next Monday. That would be far better, especially when we are going into details of the case both for and against, than to keep sandwiching this important and strategical problem, say, with questions like those in which the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) has interested herself with so much distinction, such as allowances to married officers and so on, and if we keep off this question of Singapore, as far as possible, until Monday, it will meet the convenience of the House. But this must be said straight away to avoid misunderstanding, after the statement which has been made by my right hon. Friend. I consider that the decision of the Government has been most deplorable.
He tells us that Japan is friendly. He tells us that we are pacifists, that we are pacific. I do not deny it. But does he not also understand—I am sure that he does—that either Japan or ourselves can make a false movement, which means nothing, but which in reality would change the minds of both of us? If ray right hon. Friend does not understand that, it is a great defect, if I may say so with respect, in his political equipment. Because he knows perfectly well that certain approaches which we make to America in certain matters, relating to our policy in the world and to American policy in the world, had to be explained to Japan—all this appeared in the Press so that I may refer to it—so that Japan might understand that everything is all right and that our old friendship was as
fresh, vigorous and affectionate as ever. And yet, in the case of these of us who were responsible for the policy, it has never crossed our minds for a single moment that there could be any misunderstanding about it.
But now as to Japan. My right hon. Friend can quote Admiral this and Admiral that, and Minister this and Minister that, and when ho has done it all he will not convince one single person who knows anything about Japan that Japan is not interested. A friend of mine, who has been going about the Singapore district, a man of very good judgment, has written me a letter from which I may quote two sentences, for which I will take it upon myself to make myself responsible to the House. He has such a complete knowledge of the subject that I think I should rend what he writes. He says:
Every bazaar in the East knows our reason for it. It is a common topic of conversation of Europeans. Everywhere east of Suez natives are already discussing such a war between the white and yellow races in relation to their own aspirations. Upon this Singapore has a very direct bearing.
What one feels, even in European questions, is often this: that the difference between success and failure does not always depend upon what you say or what you are driving at, but upon the way you do it. It is not the statement, it is not the aim, it is not the act, it is the way it is done which very often makes the difference between success and failure. That is true as between Europeans. But it is ten thousand times more true when the West gets into contact with the East. If we are merely to say: "We are doing this, hut we are as pure as the newly driven snow," and arc to trust to that, and to that only, for the confidence of the Eastern, we might as well put up our shutters so far as the Eastern British Empire is concerned.
The question of security is not a question of how many miles Singapore is from Yokohama. If it is 3,000 miles, and if you say you cannot strike Yokohama from Singapore, I would remind my right hon. Friend that Yokohama is precisely the same distance from Singapore. I was reading the other day a chapter in a book of philosophical higher mathematics, in which I believe, so far as I could understand it, it was contended that returning along the same road did not mean travers-
ing exactly the same length as one traversed when going out along that road, but unless that was the method of measurement by the Admiralty my statement is true, that if Japan can feel safe while Singapore is fortified, and is a naval dockyard, because we cannot strike so far, then Japan with the intelligence of which she has proved herself in so many eventualities to be possessed, is entitled to say, "If you cannot hit us, how can we hit you?" The fact is that it is the psychological effect upon the Japanese people which we have got to consider, and the psychological effect is bad.
My right hon. Friend talks about this problem developing with too many awkward features attached to it. But when he talks of the East, as if there were no upsetting influences now, as if all were perfectly calm, and as placid, peaceful and harmonious as his own mind, it is not true. Russia has come in with very considerable effect, not merely in European countries, for the problem of Russia in the East is a far greater danger, and of far greater importance than anything which Russia can do in Europe now. Has my right hon. Friend heard of the great movement which is on at present to summon and get assembled a Pan-Oriental Conference for the purpose of the consideration of defensive and offensive and nationalist aims on the part of great nations of the East, China and Japan and other nations taking part. The problem is far more difficult than the right hon. Gentleman imagines. The ease with which he, by an unconsidered or ill-considered move in Singapore, can upset the whole equanimity of the East, is far more dangerous than he is aware of, so far as he has revealed himself to-day.
I am content for the moment to leave Singapore with one further comment. I hope that the House will not live under the delusion that this is merely a dockyard for the convenience of existing ships. Do not make any mistake about it. One great problem of cruiser building is not the problem of defence or of offence, but the problem simply of policing. We will always take that into account. But when Singapore is built, let us assume that 10 years from now we are all enjoying the pleasure of being still in this House and that we have to consider what is the effect of Singapore in the disposition of the British Fleet. The right hon. Gentleman
will not then get up and say, "I am going to use my dockyards for docking the ships that are plying here and there as police patrols in Southern Pacific waters." Not at all. The next thing will be that he will have to create that as a base for a Pacific Fleet. When Mr. Bruce talks about Imperial defence, Mr. Bruce knows what he is talking about—he knows exactly. Mr. Bruce's conception of Singapore is something like Portsmouth, something like Plymouth in the Pacific, with capital ships, with a striking force—defensive. Hon. Members know perfectly well that no brain has yet devised a defensive force that was not an offensive force. The force that is effective for defence is effective for offence. The more mobile that force is, as in its nature a fleet must be, the more the two statements mean exactly one and the same thing.
Therefore, what Singapore does is thin: it means that we have to create a new centre, not to repair ships that are passing, but a new centre where ships are to be anchored, a centre selected a? a point nearest to which the various trade routes from Eastward and Westward converge, and then, the moment It is built, it is transformed into a naval dockyard which is independent in itself, which will have its own supplies, its own fortifications. That is what is before us If it was a mere convenience, a sort of police headquarters, I do not know that I would have bothered very much about it. I think that it is unnecessary and extravagant, but really, in such a case, I would not bother much about it. But one must look at it from the large point of view, from the organic development of our national naval policy, and hon. Members who are going to vote for Singapore must take upon themselves the responsibility of moving for a complete revolution in the disposition and strategy of the British Fleet.

Viscountess ASTOR: I understood last year that you postponed the question of Singapore, but had not turned it down. Was that so?

Mr. MacDONALD: That is quite true, but what is the point of that question here I We did not turn it down. May I. suggest, with great respect, that that makes my opinion to-day all the more weighty? It was an opinion reached
after due reflection. The point is, is it the assumption that within six weeks of our coming into office in January we would come to a final conclusion upon a proposition of such enormous importance as I have been trying to indicate in my speech?

Viscountess ASTOR: Now you have come to a final conclusion?

Mr. MacDONALD: Yes, as far as I am concerned. We have come to the conclusion that the pursuit of Singapore now will be a calamity. There will be more details on Monday. What I want to point out is that in any event this base cannot be put into operation until 10 or 11 years from now. Why the haste? Why not hold one's hand I The point is that if one was convinced that the last War was to make no difference to our equipment and our strategy for peace, there is no uee in talking any pieties about pacifism. Is there any party in the country that will go and tell the country that it has lost hope in that? My own view is very firm and decided. If it is hopeless to come to an arrangement, if we cannot get the nations to give us security which is in the nature of peace, then there is nothing for it but to fight another war, and we will have to make our preparations for it. I do not believe for a single moment that we have reached that deplorable position. But what is happening, by these policies, by these commitments, by these developments, is that we are drifting nearer and nearer to that decisive point. So far as I am concerned, and so far as my friends who are with me are concerned, we shall do everything we possibly can to prevent the nation finding itself once again in the rapids above the waterfall, doomed to go over, not merely to terrible times, to pain and misery such as we have been having, but, it may be, even to destruction itself.

Sir A. MOND: I have listened with the greatest interest to two speeches with which I am in some agreement and in some disagreement, expressing, as those speeches do, the opinions of one right hon. Gentleman who has recently taken office, and of another right hon. Gentleman who has recently quitted office. I would like to transfer my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr.
Ramsay MacDonald) back to the Bench which he occupied with such distinction last year, and to hear him make a speech defending these Estimates with that eloquence with which he apparently defended the Navy Estimates then. On that occasion, in defending the construction of five cruisers, he traversed every argument in favour of peace with which to-day he has been delighting the House. He then denied every doctrine which this afternoon he has affirmed, for he said that, although he was in favour of peace, it would be criminal for him as Prime Minister not to consider the defences of the country. In a position of greater responsibility and less freedom he was prepared then to saddle this country with high Estimates at a time of great industrial distress and high taxation. The present First Lord has told us in effect to-day, "lama poor Conservative First Lord of the Admiralty who has to come here with regret and with tears in my voice, and have to confess to you that my Estimates have gone up because a Socialist Government last year neglected the Navy. "What an extraordinary spectacle? The right hon. Member for Aberavon asked why the Estimates had gone up. They have gone up because he laid down five cruisers that were entirely unnecessary—just as unnecessary as Singapore. Every argument that he has used against Singapore he could have advanced against his five cruisers.

Lieut.-Gommander BURNEY: And they could be advanced against the whole Navy?

6.0 P.M.

Sir A. MOND: Certainly. There is an increase of £ 5,000,000, and of that £ 2,600,000 is due to the construction costs of the five cruisers. Some of the increase of personnal is caused by the laying down of the five cruisers. The right hon. Gentleman is not prepared now to stand up and take up the attitude of last year on these Estimates. We are the only party that can do so. [.Interruption.] It is perfectly true. Hon. Members on the Labour Benches know that that is so. They have been in office. [HON. MBMBESS: "So have you!"] Yes, and we won the War for you. It cannot be denied, although it may be inconvenient to acknowledge the fact, that those who represent the Liberal party in this House opposed the vote on Singapore last year before the right hon. Member for Aber-
avon had made up his mind about it. We also opposed the laying down of the five cruisers. Therefore, ours is a position which cannot be denied. We have all the disadvantages of opposition, and we do not look forward, perhaps, like the right hon. Gentleman to a rapid return to office. But we have one great advantage, at any rate, and that is that we have been consistent. We need not advocate five cruisers one year and pacifism the next. Hon. Members above the Gangway have had that experience. They have found consistency difficult in office, but we have no temptation on that score. Let us consider the position which these Estimates disclose. They disclose an increase of £ 5,000,000. In reality the net increase is £ 5,175,000 for the effective services and £ 155,000 for the no effective services, balanced by decreases amounting to £ 631,000, which, as the right hon. Gentleman explained, are largely due to automatic falling off in various items. The right hon. Gentleman has fairly placed before the House the cause of these various increases, and anyone who has studied the White Paper is familiar with them. To some extent undoubtedly they are commitments from last year, but the alarming fact about the increase is that the Government have not yet really begun to put their Estimates before the House. Singapore is camouflage. What money is to be spent there comes from charitable contributions from outside, and T quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's desire to use that money before it is withdrawn. But the Government's naval programme is not yet drawn up. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea of what the Naval Estimates are really going to be? We have already got an increase of £ 5,000,000. Are we to see an increase of another £ 15,000,000? What is our position? We have at the present time an increase of £ 12,000,000 over the Naval Estimates presented before the War in 1914.
In the whole discussion of these matters there is surely only one thing which is really fundamental. Nobody doubts the essential importance to this country and this Empire of a strong Navy, and I think in a long Parliamentary career I have never voted against the Navy Estimates. I have heard long discussions in the old days about whether we wanted six Dread-
noughts or eight Dreadnoughts, and I wondered, in those days, how eminent statesmen could spend their time in discussing such narrow margins when we had such great dangers threatening us, and at a time when we had a small debt and low taxation. Can any sensible person doubt that our position to-day is radically different? The Fleet which threatened us before the late War is at the bottom of Scapa Flow, and Great Britain's present naval position in Europe has never been equalled at any period of our history. We do not find any challenge to it in any part of Europe. The Navy of the other great branch of the English-speaking race across the Atlantic is the only Navy to-day which can be said to equal ours in strength and numbers. Are we then prepared to enter into a building campaign with the United States of America? That is the fundamental question on which this House should make up its mind. Ever since I began to study this question, I have noticed that somebody has always wanted to have some programme. At one time, when I was a young man, France was the naval bugbear of this country, and the French Navy was held up to us as one that we should build against. When we became too strong for that argument to have any weight, then was introduced the two-Power standard, and at one time we almost talked of a three-Power standard. Then we came back again to a one-Power standard. I can quite understand the difficulty of framing a standard in the present political complexion of the world, but I would ask this: Are we to gain nothing at all after having for five years made the greatest sacrifice any country ever made? Is the great naval victory which we won not to relieve the people of this country by one penny piece of the enormous expenditure placed upon their shoulders? Is it reasonable after that great victory to have an increase and not a decrease in our Naval Estimates as compared with the Naval Estimates before the War?
I see hon. Members opposite who will appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that taxation should be reduced on the ground that unemployment is increasing and that British industry is disappearing under high taxation, and these same hon. Members twill cheer vociferously every sentence in favour of
maintaining a great expensive Navy and building great naval bases. They cannot have it both ways. I maintain the country cannot afford to go on with Naval Estimates of this kind and increases of this kind. The finance of the country makes it an impossible proposition. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite ever reflect on the paradox that Germany, who is now becoming our greatest commercial competitor, after being defeated, has no Naval Estimates at all while we, having been victorious, are increasing our Naval Estimates? What benefit have we reaped from the great victory which we won?

Mr. MACKINDER: You said you won the War. We are winning the peace.

Sir A. MOND: One cannot discuss a subject of this kind and keep up a conversation with hon. Members above the Gangway. I put these views forward because I feel profoundly that in the present state of the finances of this country and of the trade of this country and of unemployment in this country, the time has arrived when we must cut our financial cloth a great deal more in accordance with what we can afford. I said once that Great Britain could no longer afford to be the philanthropist of the world. We are no longer in a position to act as the rich uncle from America handing out tips. We have, undoubtedly, become poor since the War as everybody knew we would, and we have to take a more exacting and a narrower standard for our financial commitments. The First Lord used that formula which I have heard so often, "economy and efficiency." When I was younger I used to be terribly impressed by the statements of heads of Government Departments that nothing more could be done for economy because efficiency would suffer. Since I myself have been in charge of two Government Departments and since I have been on more than one Cabinet Committee going into the Estimates of Government Departments, I have become sceptical on the subject. I have seen Estimates reduced by millions, while the Department concerned has apparently remained quite efficient, and I maintain that we are not getting all the economy which we could get with efficiency, and we shall never get it until this House and the
taxpayers refuse to allow the Departments to have more than a certain amount of money.
I was chairman of a Committee at one time, endeavouring to co-ordinate certain services of the Army, Navy and Air Force in order to produce economy and every representative of those eminent Departments came to our Committee and explained to us the absolute impossibility of doing what we wanted. I never remember anybody coming to us and putting forward a proposal to effect economy. I remember the then Prime Minister and myself starting an inquiry into the Army Estimates just before we went out of office, and he, like myself, remarked on the fact that nobody ever came forward even to suggest economy, while everybody was prepared with arguments of an irresistible character to prove that the expenditure which was being incurred was necessary to the efficiency of the British Army. Therefore, I am no longer convinced by that argument on these subjects. I am not convinced when I am told that the least economy we make will produce inefficiency. I believe if the Government had the courage to reduce these Estimates by £ 10,000,000 they would have just as good a Navy and they would save the taxpayer that amount of money. When the Geddes Committee was carrying out its investigations, there was considerable controversy as to the manning of the Navy and some of the controversialists were of opinion that a cheaper system could be found for manning the Navy but the naval experts disagreed. I remember the right hon. Gentleman who is now Chancellor of the Exchequer taking an active part at that time in endeavouring to bring about a reduction of the Navy Estimates and he was very largely successful in his endeavour. I have no doubt he will do everything in his power now and indeed the First Lord indicated that when he said that he had had friendly conversations with the Treasury. As an ex-Minister I know those friendly conversations only too well but the pressure which the Treasury can bring to bear in this matter is nothing to the pressure which this House and the people of this country could bring to bear. Only to-day in the newspapers I have read an extract from the report of the Auditor and Comptroller-General in reference to the Appropriation
Account of the Navy for 1923-24. I find there a little story of another transaction in which the Navy was involved as a result of which quite a considerable amount of money was lost, and the Report also tells of smaller occurrences which have come to notice. Is it really believed that no further cut can be made-in these Estimates, that everything has been bought at the cheapest possible price and that the dockyards are really being managed with the same efficiency as the private shipyards of this country?

Viscountess ASTOR: Plymouth is.

Sir A. MOND: I am afraid that statement is to be taken with some reserve. It comes from an interested party. Docs anybody believe that if these Estimates were seriously reduced, the British Navy or the British Empire would really suffer? If they do, I must say we are still far away from that practical realisation of our duty at which we as Members of this House should by this time have arrived. That is why I have taken part in this Debate and why, although I have not done so myself, some of us will move an actual reduction in order to give the House an opportunity of going to a Division. I hope the right hon. Gentleman did not misunderstand the purport of an interruption which I reluctantly made when he was speaking. I did not mean to imply that the creation of the Singapore base would necessarily be looked upon as a provocative act, but the right hon. Gentleman at the time was making remarks about co-operation and he was mentioning that an American had told him a certain story, and therefore I thought I would draw his attention to the fact that his remarks might very well be misinterpreted on the other side of the Atlantic at a moment when, I understand, the American Government are seriously thinking of calling another naval disarmament conference. I think if the right hon. Gentleman reads what he said he will understand the reason for my interruption.
About Singapore, I am a little bewildered as to the attitude of the Government. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to state officially that the Government had not decided to take any immediate action and were considering the whole problem, but when he warmed up to his subject he began to let out in favour
of Singapore with great vehemence and great argumentative force. On that subject I should like to ask a few questions. Is it not a fact that we have already at Singapore a naval base in which we can repair practically everything except the largest sized battleships and cruisers? That is to say, we could already deal at Colombo or Singapore with the ordinary cruiser which would be used in wartime for protecting trade routes. How was it that during the five years of the War we succeeded in protecting these trade routes without the expenditure of £ 11,000,000 on Singapore?

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: The Japanese Fleet was helping us.

Sir A. MOND: I know the Japanese Fleet, most successfully, came to our assistance in those waters, but that is scarcely an answer to my question.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: It knocks the bottom out of it.

Sir A. MOND: Perhaps the hon. Member will listen to what I am about to say. The point I am putting is this: Was the absence of works now intended to be erected at Singapore, in any way destructive of the ability of our Fleet and the Japanese Fleet to safeguard these trade routes? The Japanese ships cooperating with us wanted exactly the same dockyard accommodation for repairs as ours. I believe it is not denied, but I do not profess to speak with authority, that we have there a base which is suitable for cruiser work, but the idea of the new base is for a battleship base, which is entirely different, and that is why I ask for this information. Again, surely we ought to get—and I suppose we shall get in time, when the Government have further considered this question—very much more detailed estimates of the total cost. At present I do not suppose anybody will quarrel about the floating dock going there. That is not a matter, I think, of great consequence, but when you come to a project which will involve not merely naval but military and air co-operation, a project which, as the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Itamsay MacDonald) said, transposes the weight almost of British naval strategy from the Mediterranean, where it is mainly concentrated to-day, to Far Eastern waters, it seems that even the Govern-
ment, much more the House, would hesitate before entering on a path which it is extraordinarily difficult to retrace. We cannot possibly afford to enter on an undertaking of this kind unless we are determined to carry it through at all costs. It is obvious, merely from the point of view of British prestige, that no Government, and no subsequent Government, could begin a scheme of that kind and then drop it. Once you start on it, whatever the ultimate cost is going to be, you will have to carry it through, and, therefore, it wants an amount of anxious consideration far greater than has yet been given to it in all its bearings. Personally, I am no believer in its necessity or its efficiency.
The right, hon. Gentleman spoke about insurance, hut, after all, insurance is a business proposition, and there is such a thing as over-insurance as well 13 under-insurance. I know people to-day who arc almost suffering from it, because so much of their income is going in insurance premiums that they have nothing left to live on, and nations are getting to the position of increasing their insurance to a point of being so burdened by expenditure that they decay at home in order to ensure themselves against dangers far away. Perhaps the fact that I have recently been in countries where great. Empires have come and great Empires have disappeared makes me fee) that the history of those Empires is due to the fact that they neglected their home centres in order to expand themselves abroad. The decay practically of every Empire, from those of the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians down to Roman times, has been largely due to that cause. Therefore, anybody who is anxious that we should not follow the almost universal example feels more than ever responsible that we should look to it that we arc sound at home. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister the other day made an eloquent speech which resounded throughout the country, on peace at home. He asked employers and employed to get round a table and try to solve the industrial problem to-day, but if the employer has nothing but an empty cupboard, what is the good of asking anybody to come and share it with him? If, as I contend, great expenditure) and heavy taxation
are producing this result, what is the use of the Prime Minister asking the employers and the employed to sit down and try to solve an impossible task? The responsibility of assisting in this task lies on the shoulders of the Government, and on those of nobody more than my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is really the man to whom the country is looking. He has been a First, Lord of the Admiralty. He has been, with me, engaged in retrenchment, and I say that I consider he has failed in his duty now in not seeing that these Estimates, far from exceeding what came before, have been reduced to what they were. In his effort to carry out the ideals of economy which I know he has at heart, he has been defeated by those with whom he has often been in contention before.

Vice-Admiral Sir A. HENNIKER-HUGHAN: I rise 10 address the House for the first time, and T know the House will accord me that kindly indulgence with which it greets all new Members when they are making their first speech. I should like to inform the House that the reason why I am joining in the Debate to-night is that I have had the honour of serving His Majesty in His Majesty's Navy for a period of 10 years, and I, therefore, feel that perhaps I have some slight cause for speaking on the subject of naval stratesy and requirements. I was much interested, in the first Debate on the Air Estimates, to hear it quoted that a certain gallant Admiral, who, I think, was Admiral Fisher, had informed the public before the War broke out that the public could sleep quietly in their beds. My opinion is that Admiral Fisher was perfectly right, because, if there was one fighting service which was ready for war when War broke out. it was. I contend, the British Navy. Owing to our great good fortune in having a grand mobilisation for the manoeuvres of 1014 in progress, and also owing to the fact that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then First Lord of the Admiralty, and Prince Louis of Battenberg arranged that that mobilisation should be retained when war was imminent, practically the whole of our naval forces and men were mobilised when War broke out. The Grand Fleet was at sea also on the night of the declaration of War, and all our soldiers
were transported safely, owing to this mobilisation, without, I think, any mishap, across the Channel.
Ten months after war was declared the whole of the outlying surface craft belonging to the enemy had either been captured or destroyed—I am not alluding to their High Seas Fleet, which was kept in their own harbours—and had it not been for the totally unexpected action of the Germans in torpedoing peaceful merchant ships, there is no reason why the food supply of this country should not have gone on perfectly peacefully during the whole course of the War. This is rather ancient history, and I apologise for the digression, but having the opportunity, the proud opportunity, of speaking in the House of Commons as a Member of Parliament, I feel that I should like to say a word in defence of the Service in which T have served for so many years. May T say at once that I am not one of those who think that the Navy is "played out"? I have every respect for the Air Service. I take off my hat to it. I consider that the Air Service, having regard to its short life, is a wonderful Service, but, at the same time, I say that it has not superseded the Navy and is not likely to supersede it for a very long time to come.
May I put this one point to those who say that the Air Service may supersede the Navy? Can the Air Service defend our trade routes? I say, "No, absolutely impossible: at any rate, not for very many years to come," and I do not believe it will be able to do it then. I also say-a subject which came up earlier in the Debate—that the Navy should have its own Air Force. I am quite certain of that in my own mind, because I think that the pilots and observers who have to work with the Navy should be caught young, like all other naval officers. They ought to be trained in the sea sense. It is no use, if war is declared, for an Admiral in charge of a Fleet to be supplied with pilots and observers who do not know anything about the Navy, who may not know a battleship from a cruiser. It is absolutely essential that these pilots and observers, who act as scouts, when they do send in or bring in their reports, should be able to tell the Admiral exactly what is the composition of the
enemy's fleet, how the fleet is steering, what formation he is in, how many ships there are of different classes; and unless they can do that they are absolutely useless to the Admiral. That is my point, and I really think that most hon. Members in this House, even if they are pot personally interested very much in the Navy, will say that that is logic. I also say that you have the additional advantage that when these airmen's lifetime is over, they can return back as they wore, and resume their ordinary duties on board a man-of-war.
I have studied the Naval Estimates, and must say that I am very disappointed in the construction programme. I had hoped we were going to see a greater addition to the cruisers. Only five are laid down. It is true there are two others, the "Effingham" and the "Frobisher," but these are rather ancient vessels. They appear in the Naval Estimates as débutantes, but I think they are rapidly becoming dowagers. I happen to know a good deal about the "Frobisher," because after I left the Grand Fleet, when I was promoted to Rear-Admiral, I was sent to the dockyard at Devonport as Admiral-Superintendent. The "Frobisher" was just being laid down at that moment. Her keel was being laid, and we were very anxious to push her ahead in every way, but—and this was not the Admiralty's fault—in the Spring of 1917 the intensive submarine warfare against our merchant vessels started, and it was so intense round the south-west, off Plymouth, that the whole of the resources of the dockyard in the way of salving and docking and repairing were employed in salving, repairing, and docking those of our own merchant vessels that we could rescue. I consider that in the spring of 1917, especially in April, our country was nearer being done in than at any time in our history for many centuries past. I was saying that our great trouble, to my mind, and our crying need is new cruisers. There should be no diminution of our total effective cruiser strength when once the programme has been decided on. The First Lord told us to-night that there might be more hopes, after a Committee had met, of getting additional cruisers. All that I can say is this, that I only hope it may be so, and I know that many of
my hon. Friends on this side hope so too, but we have nothing definite at present that we are going to get more. Cruisers are required for two distinct purposes—working with the Fleet and trade protection—and the same ships cannot do both. A very large number are required for trade protection, as we learned to our cost in the War. I alluded to the "Effingham" and "Frobisher." Apart from their being rather ancient, I consider their armament is not big enough. They have only 7'5 guns, and I consider that all our new cruisers should be provided with 8-inch guns. Then, I think, the construction of destroyers and submarines also is not sufficient, but I wish to devote myself to-night entirely to mentioning the cruisers, as I feel there are a great many of my hon. Friends behind who are anxious to join in the Debate.
The Leader of the Opposition mentioned that there was going to be a Debate on Singapore. I should be only too pleased to meet his views, and say nothing about it, but I think he will understand that, as a Back Bench Member, I am very much interested in Singapore, and if one does not speak now, when one has the chance, one might not have the chance on Monday. May I say I am very pleased, indeed, to hear that Singapore is being proceeded with. I do not want to say too much about myself, but I am intimately-acquainted with the China Seas, having been out there for seven years, and having been 3½ years in Australia at one time and nine months at Singapore at a stretch, I really do think I know something about Singapore. Singapore resolves itself into two separate strategical problems—the first, the safeguarding of our Dominions, and the second, the protecting of our trade routes.
I think it is only telling the House what it really knows if I take the first point, the safeguarding of our Dominions. We all know that Australia, to use a colloquial expression, is determined to remain white, and is resisting emigration from the two Eastern countries which are to the north of her. It is a very praiseworthy thing on the part of Australia, but, unfortunately, she is defenceless, and we know that those two Eastern countries to the north of Australia are most
anxious to get rid of their surplus population by getting them to emigrate to Australia, and should at any time—which, I trust, may never happen—one of those Powers decide to adopt methods which are not peaceful to ensure this emigration, then Australia would be in a very parlous position, because she would be defenceless. I say she would not be defenceless if she had the defence of the British Navy, but, unless we have this base at Singapore, the British Navy would not be able to defend her. So here we have Australia defenceless without the assistance of the British Navy, and the British Navy unable to protect Australia unless we have this base at Singapore.
I have the honour to represent an agricultural constituency, namely, Galloway, in the south-west of Scotland. It is a long and rambling constituency, with not many large towns, but a great many villages, and in my passage through Galloway, during the Election, I was surprised to find that the subject of Singapore interested people even in the very smallest villages. I found the reason was that a great many had friends and relatives in the Dominions, and when it was represented to them, as I endeavoured to represent it, what the case was in regard to Singapore, I think the peril was brought home to them of what might happen to them, or, rather, to their children or to their friends' children in Australia, and they took a very great interest in it, indeed. The second point of Singapore is, of course, as I said, the protection of trade. You all know that long narrow lane of ships proceeding west to east and east to west. Strategically, Singapore is in an admirable position for the protection of that trade. The erection of the base is no breach of faith at all, because it was all arranged for at the Washington Conference. As has been put to us to-day, it is a great distance from Japan, and could be no menace to them. The main fleet base cannot be in Australia, because, if it were, to get to that base, the main fleet would have to pass, first, through the Straits of Singapore, where there would be no base. Finally, the site selected is on a granite geological formation, very different from the Singapore commercial docks. A sufficient number of borings have already been taken to prove that granite exists at a suitable depth, and I think we could
not have found a better place to have this base than the one we have selected at Singapore.
Before concluding, I should like to say one word as to how pleased I am, at any rate, that there seems to be a chance of a married officers' allowance. The naval officer has been the only member of the fighting forces who was not hitherto getting that, and I really fail to see the logic of why he should not have received it. In my own case, when I first went to sea, in 1881, we were always told as young officers that if we got married we were marred. That was rammed home to us, but at that time the pay was very much smaller than now, and, unless you had private means, there was no more chance of getting married than of flying to the moon; at any rate, it was very injudicious to do so. But now the pay is increased, and there is the chance of married officers getting this allowance, and I say it will be a most admirable thing. I do not want to praise the Navy, but I consider the young naval officer of the present day—I can say this, because I am of the past—is rather a fine specimen of humanity. He is of an amatory and inflammatory nature, and when he can spare time from the exercise of his duties, he is usually in love. Therefore I say that this marriage allowance will be a splendid thing for him, so that he can get married, and, perhaps, provide for future naval officers and future young Airmen. I must thank the House for the attention they have given me on my first attempt to address it.

LOWER DECK GRIEVANCES.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
in the interests of efficiency in the Navy and a contented personnel on the Lower Beck, every facility should be afforded for the rectification of grievances, welfare committees should be encouraged and granted greater freedom of expression, and the opportunity of ultimate high promotion brought within the reach of every entrant.
In common with other Members of this House present to-night, I have listened with interest and profit to the speech which has been delivered by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down, and I am quite sure I am speaking on
their behalf, as well as my own, in saying that I hope we may have the pleasure of hearing him on other occasions. But I rise to-night to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper, and, therefore, I must restrain my natural impulse to answer any of the things which he has said, or which have been said by the right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on this side of the House. In rising to move this Amendment, I make no apology for the fact that, as a civilian, and as a Member for an inland constituency, I am raising this issue. Everyone of us living in these islands is deeply interested in the sea. Not only are we, as a race, a seafaring people; not only have many of us travelled by ships over the seas to different parts of the world, but, as a matter of fact, a great part of our foodstuff is either obtained from the sea itself or is brought oversea from other countries and everything that appertains to ships and to the sea is of special interest to every one of us in these islands.
Most important, therefore, are the conditions which prevail among those who go down to the sea in ships. The peculiar position of this country brings it about that what we decide here, and the conditions that we secure on our ships, will largely set the standard for what goes on in the ships of other nations. Therefore, in putting forward the point of view I am taking to-night, I am speaking, to a certain extent, not merely for the seamen of our own ships, but for those of the world as a whole, and that makes me realise the very heavy responsibility that rests on my shoulders. I am particularly anxious that any lack of technical know ledge, which I possess, or any failure on my part to state correctly the facts which have been entrusted to me to put forward, shall not prejudice the case of those who have so much that should be said on their behalf. When we are dealing with the whole question of those who go down to the sea in ships, there is always much that might be brought forward with regard to the conditions of service in the merchant marine. That problem would be entirely out of or order in our discussion to-night. However much we may feel that there are grievances in the service which ought to he rectified, what we are concerned with this evening is solely the question of the Navy.
I should like to say one word of introduction. There is, of course, considerable divergence of opinion in this House on such questions as the size and cost of the Navy. The Debate to-night, in so far as it has gone, has already given evidence to that effect, as have also Debates on previous occasions, and no doubt later on we shall have proof of that in Amendments that may be put down, and in expressions that may be put forward on this subject. The Amendment I have the honour to move cuts across these questions, because I think all of us in this House must agree, that it there is to be a Navy at all, it ought to exist under the best conditions, and that the most essential condition is that of the personnel. It is of supreme importance that the men who are serving in the Navy shall be satisfied with their conditions, and, unless that be so, it is quite impossible for the Navy to be efficient, and to be satisfactory in any way whatever.
In that very interesting speech a few-days ago, the Prime Minister pointed out the considerable changes that had taken place in industry in the course of his lifetime. I should like to emphasise that, and to point out that one of the great changes that has taken place, not only in industry, but in everything where men and women are employed, is the change in relationship of the classes. I am quite sum that everyone in this House, not confined to one party, must recognise that conditions, which may have been tolerable, or, at any rate, were tolerated, years ago, are quite intolerable, and would not be tolerated at the present day. Therefore, I hope, that not only those on this side, but those who are on all the benches in this House, will lend me their ears, and give their support to the point of view that I propose to put forward, with a view to remedying the grievances which are felt by those, particularly, of the lower deck.
The first point to which I want to draw the attention of the House is the question of accommodation. The position of affairs on a flagship is at the present time, roughly, as follows: The whole of the accommodation of the ship may be divided into three equal parts. One part is devoted to the living, sleeping, eating, and general use of the flag
officer himself and staff, consisting, say, of 12 persons. Another third of the ship is for the use of the ship's officers, numbering, perhaps 80 to 85 persons. The remaining one-third of the accommodation is all that is available for the ship's company, numbering perhaps from 800 to 1,000 men. Under these conditions, the sleeping accommodation of the men is naturally exceedingly close. When it is realised that that accommodation is on the lower deck, and that it is the same accommodation where the men have to have their living room and eating room, it will be seen that the condition of affairs, particularly at 5.30 a.m., is such as cannot be adequately described. Particularly in view of the fact that being, as I say, the lower deck, there is not an unlimited amount of fresh air; the conditions, indeed, are stilling. That is what prevails at the present time.
Let us also take the question of the food that is served on these ships. The actual quality of food supplied before it is cooked is probably quite as good as could be expected. I do, however, suggest that this good food is very largely wasted, owing to the fact that the opportunity for cooking is totally inadequate for the large number of people for whom it is intended. I understand, on a ship where there arc something like 800 or 900 seamen, that it is no uncommon thing for the cooking arrangements to consist merely of a coal range measuring something like 20 ft. by 4 ft.—this on a Dreadnought. Anyone who knows a little about cooking arrangements—I am sure the hon. Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) will know about these things, and more possibly than the naval authorities in this House—will agree with me that that is totally inadequate.
I would further remind the Minister that to-day the seamen are men who have been given an education, and are accustomed to read and to write. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the conditions under which anyone wishing to read or to do writing on these ships is exceedingly difficult. The time, I think, has come when some provision on these ships should be made for something in the nature of a special place set apart for study, for reading, and for writing purposes. We recognise quite clearly the difficulties of transform-
ing the existing ships to make any very great change in this direction, though even here, I think, it is possible that arrangements might be made to do something. Even, however, if the difficulties arc greater than some of us feel at present, there is, at any rate, the question of the ships which are at present under construction. I understand that the new use of oil-fuel, in place of coal-fuel, means a very large amount of additional space at disposal. Instead, however, of anything being done to increase the accommodation available for the seamen, the space has been taken up in other ways, and the seamen are still limited as in days gone by. I suggest that in passing the plans of other new ships attention should be paid to this point, and that some means should be found of providing larger and better accommodation, and in some cases accommodation for reading, writing, and study for the seamen who have to live their live? on the ships.
I turn to a somewhat different question. It is one that has relation to the Naval Discipline Act. I should not like there to be any mistake on this point. Of course, the men for whom I am speaking realise quite clearly that they are part: of the fighting services. They realise in consequence that the discipline to which they must submit themselves is different from the discipline which is expected of the civilian forces. They fully understand that. They do not complain of it. They do not complain of the Act, at any rate in its main conditions. Nor do they complain of the administration of the Act if that administration is in the hands of reasonable commanding officers. The ships—and I understand they are in the majority—where there are such reasonable commanding officers, are known as "happy" ships, because the seamen on those ships can live a happy life, doing their duty, and doing it all the better because their happiness is assured. On the other hand, there are commanding officers of a different kind. They are of the unreasonable kind. The kind of life lived by seamen on these ships is such that in this House may be described as unbearable, though the seamen themselves use other language, which you, Mr. Speaker, would not permit me to employ. I could tell many stories as to the kind of thing which goes on which
would illustrate my point, but it is not my intention to do so. They can be seen in the paper devoted to the seamen, and, therefore, it would be a waste of time to repeat them. Let me come to the essence of the thing.
There are large and serious crimes occasionally committed by seamen. These merit very considerable punishment. There are some crimes which are essentially of a very petty character. Smart ness and cleanliness are very important things on board these ships, but at the same time some minute departure from smartness or cleanliness, some small departure, which involves, it may be, some slight mark upon a man's uniform or something of the kind, is not an offence of a character which merits severe punishment. I am quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that presiding, as you do, over the fortunes and destinies of this House, you realise that there are many mistakes that some of us make. Sometimes we offend against the dignity or the rights of the House, and these offences merit rebuke from you; but you would not think of inflicting upon Members who were guilty of these slight derogations from duty any very serious castigation. I do suggest that what has happened in the case of the seamen by unreasonable commanding officers goes against that rule. We have to realise how some of these punishments for small offences may be very severely administered.
Take, for instance, the case of a ship that has been on a two and a half years' cruise away from these islands. The ship comes into port. The men are waiting to see their wives and friends, and the wives and families of the men who have looked forward during weary years to the return of the husband and father home are there. Before the ship comes into port, some trifling irregularity is committed by a seaman, and for that very trifling offence the offender may be punished by so many days' loss of shore leave. That is, I suggest, an exceedingly serious thing—a punishment of a very severe kind, which I am quite sure that any man in this House, if such a punishment were imposed upon him under similar circumstances, would realise was a very grave thing. In regard to this, I suggest, particularly for the married men with families living in the home ports,
that leave should not be stopped, except for very serious and grave offences; that it should not be stopped for the kind of petty offences which I have in mind.
7.0 p.m.
While on this question of leave, I would also draw attention to the fact that for a seaman only one night's leave in four is inadequate. A very large part of the men's lives are spent away from home. It is less than that granted to the Army and to the marines in barracks. The only justification given for it is that it is necessary to have a large proportion of the ship's company at hand in case of fire. I suggest that that is not an adequate explanation—perhaps not the real explanation. I ask for attention to be paid to this grievance with a view to seeing if a somewhat larger measure of leave could not be given. There is also the question of railway fares. Seamen, say, returned home to some port in the United Kingdom may have their wives and families at an exceedingly distant part of these islands. If they 7.0 P.M. are to go home the railway journey may be a very considerable, expense to the men. I think there should be some consideration in respect of this. It is not for me to suggest the precise form in which it should be given; that reels with the Minister, but for a man to have to spend £ 5 or £ 6 in order to get to his home seems to me, under the circumstances, to be outrageous. It is only fair that the country which has taken these men from their homes, placed them on ships, and then brings them back to a port in another part of the country, should make some contribution towards the expenses of the man in going back to his home while his ship is in port.
I have just one word to say about the administration of the Naval Discipline Act as it applies to naval depots. I understand that there is very considerable discontent, particularly in Devonport, and to a lesser degree in Chatham. This, of course, can be easily denied by those in authority, but a mere denial does not meet the case. Such discontent can be pushed underground, but a denial cannot remove the fact. Discontent can only be removed by adequate investigation and by seeing that the Naval Discipline Act is not administered unreasonably. It may be said that the Government
itself does not administer the Act, but I suggest that it is up to the Government, who have the ultimate responsibility in the matter, to see that the Act is not administered by any officer in an unjust and unreasonable manner. The Government can do that in two ways First of all, they can indicate by regulation the kind of way in which the Act should be administered, and then, when complaints are made of bad administration they can turn a rather more sympathetic ear than they have done in the past to the grievances of the men. They can also, iii appointing a new man to take charge, take into account how far the person they propose to appoint is really a good leader of men. Good leaders of men arc not only those who have a knowledge of the work and its technicalities. Good leaders of men are those who have the power and ability to be leaders, which means to be just and reasonable and to be respected by those who have to obey their instructions.
I come to another point. We have been hearing something about the new marriage allowances for officers. I have to ask, on behalf of the men, that they shall be allowed pensions for their widows on the same lines as already given to the widows of officers. At the present time, if an officer is killed or dies, whether he is on the active or retired list, his widow and children receive pensions. In some cases, if he is a widower, his mother and sometimes his sister is entitled to a pension.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: No.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: If I am wrong, let me put it in this way. The rights of the dependants of officers to pensions are very much higher than those of the men. and a claim can be made on behalf of an officer which would not be entertained on behalf of a seaman. The seamen ask that their dependants shall be looked after by the country which enjoys their services in the same way in which officers' dependants are looked after. My next point is the question of compulsory Divine Service. No doubt the bulk of the seamen on our ships will be very anxious to avail themselves of the opportunities for Divine Service which are provided, but it is contrary to the spirit of the age that it should be made compulsory. Even in a consider-
able number of our prisons compulsion to attend Divine Service has been removed. As a matter of fact, the attendance is practically the same as it was before, and I have no doubt it would be the same in the Navy, but it is felt that there is something degrading in making these services compulsory. Under mod in conditions the element of compulsion should be removed.
Then there is the question of the welfare committees. It is generally admitted that these welfare committees have been to the great advantage of the seamen in presenting their case, but I suggest there is still a good deal of ground to be covered in this matter. The men do not object to the fact that usually an officer presides at their meetings, but they do find that there are a good many subjects which are ruled out of discussion, and they claim that wider latitude should be given, and that at some stage they should be entitled to publicity, because they believe it is only through publicity that their grievances can be put right. While speaking of their "rights," let me say a word with regard to political rights. The men realise that while they are in uniform and acting directly as servants of the State they cannot take an active part in politics, but they do not see why, when they are in private clothes and dealing with matters which do not affect their own service, they should be denied the right which every other citizen of this country possesses—as they were during the last Election.

Sir B. FALLE: The hon. Member's own Government took away sailors' privileges during the last Election.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It does not make any difference. I am speaking on the general question.

Mr. AMMON: The hon. and gallant Member who interrupted is wrong. The last Government continued the practice set up by its predecessor.

Sir B. FALLE: For which there was no authority whatever.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: This is not really a party question, and I hope Members on all sides of the House, to whatever party they belong, will support the rights of the men in the Navy. There is another small matter I should like to mention, but I hesitate to do so in the
presence of the hon. Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor). It is the question of rum ration. It is not a question of the giving or withholding of that ration; it is simply a question as to the time at which it is given. It is now given in the middle of the day, and the wish of a large number of people is that if given it should be in the evening instead of in the middle of the day.

Viscountess ASTOR: A lot of them do not want it at all.

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: One word on the question of promotion. I am sure that we cannot go on under the old inefficient method of promotion, and I suggest that there should be a ladder from the lowest to the highest, and that it may take something of this form. A man of good character, who has served for five years, should become eligible for an examination, and, if he proves himself capable and efficient in that examination, he should have the right to be sent to a naval training college, and, after spending two years there if he has equipped himself with the necessary technical qualifications, it should be possible for him to receive a commission as a sub-lieutenant.
I now pass to the question of the submarines. Prior to January, 1920, service on submarines was voluntary. Subsequent to that date service on submarines was included among the duties for which a seaman signed on, and in the Service it is felt that it is not right that men who before, say, 1920, signed on to "serve afloat" should be compulsorily pushed into service on submarines. They feel that this is a serious grievance inflicted upon them since the present Government came into office, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take steps to deal with it.
Finally, I come to the question of the gratuity and retainer. In the Committee which was presided over by Admiral Sir Martyn Jerram in 1919, the Royal Fleet Reserve and the Royal Naval Reserve made application to have their retainer and gratuity increased in order to meet the increased cost of living. They suggested that the 6d. retainer should be increased to 1s. 6d. and the £ 50 gratuity increased to £ 150. That was certainly not an unreasonable demand, because in the year 1919 the cost of living had increased roughly in that proportion. The
increase is not so large to-day, and the men are not asking for so large an increase to-day. The gratuity in the case of the Royal Fleet Reserve has been increased to £ 100, but the gratuity of the Royal Naval Reserve still remains at only £ 50, and what the men in both these classes are asking is that they should have a gratuity of £ 100 and a retainer of Is., and I do not think either of those demands is unreasonable.
I have come to the end of the points I wanted to bring to the attention of the Minister. They do not, of course, cover the whole of the grievances the men have, but I think they are the principal ones. If he can see his way to meet us on some, at any rate, of those proposals, I think he will have taken a very big step towards restoring content, and producing in the men who go down to the sea in ships, and who have necessarily to put up with hardships in many ways about which they do not complain, a feeling that the Navy is a service which men can enter and in which their real interests will be safeguarded and preserved.

Mr. GROVES: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am very pleased to have the opportunity of doing so. This is not the first time I have spoken in this House, but it is probably the most difficult occasion for me, because the brief which was handed to my hon. Friend is similar to the one handed to me, and he has said all there really is to be said on the subject. But I would like to amplify some points, and express my own honest and sincere opinion in proportion to my degree of interest in the Navy, though I represent a constituency that contains not even a dockyard, and I do not profess to know anything about the sea. As a matter of fact, I have never been to sea, and have never seen a battleship, but I am just as keenly interested in the welfare of the men, because people who live in my own constituency and have spent 10 or 12 years in the Navy have proved to me, though I am standing up for a few moments to protest against certain things which they consider to be restrictions, that for general moral lone and the development of character, the Navy is certainly not to be sneezed at.
I am concerned for the abolition of compulsory attendance at divine service
I would not like to be compelled to attend service, and I think the present practice in the Navy is a relic of olden times that we ought to have shed, as we have shed it in civilian life. As a boy I remember leading of the time when it was a penal offence, in civilian life, if a citizen of this country did not attend church. Now it is not a penal offence; and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty that he ought to consider taking some steps in the Navy whereby this compulsory attendance at divine service is mitigated. I dare say there are Members of this House who have sweet memories of the old days when they had high pews in churches, and when men who were not necessarily religious were compelled to attend church they certainly did attend, but behind the high pews they used to play with packs of cards. The men in the Navy have not that privilege, because there arc no high pews, and I suggest that these seamen, who are no more irreligious than any other citizens of the country, should not be compelled to attend divine service. I want to see religious services made so attractive that they will fill the churches of the country, and I have always been concerned as to whether Britain will ever see the time when the church bell attracts as many people as the fire bell. I do not suppose we shall get that in civilian life; and I feel that religious services in the Navy should be made so attractive that the men themselves will attend voluntarily.
Then I am concerned about another point put by my right hon. Friend with regard to the social welfare committees of the Navy. I make no apology for the fact that until the very moment I was elected to this House I was a workman, earning my daily bread by manual labour. I worked for the London County Council for 17 years, and had a good deal to do with the development of the social welfare committees there. I am not an old man, but I have been through the period of industrial history when employers used to object, even in civilian life, to consulting with their workpeople. The recent speech of the Prime Minister in this House indicates that the country has got through that stage, that we have evolved from a condition of oppression and repression to the position where the men will sit down with their employers, and vice versa, and try to thrash out
problems in order to arrive at an amicable settlement. I see sitting opposite an hon. Gentleman with whom I sat in conference on the London County Council, trying to thrash out things instead of fighting out things.
In the Navy the men are ordinary human beings. They are engaged under conditions of confinement and not necessarily refinement. There is the possibility, shall I say, with no disrespect to anyone, that an Admiral whose liver is bad will not be able to deal with, shall I say, an able-bodied seaman in just the spirit of decorum and propriety that we woud expect to be used in this House? I want to feel that the individual seaman should be free to express to his commanding officer, in polite terms, probably through his representative on the social welfare committee, just those claims which the men on the lower deck feel to be, and I believe would be considered by his commanding officer to be, in all respects compatible with the efficiency of His Majesty's Navy. We have had complaints from the men that sometimes even Admirals take stern and drastic action with sailors because their clothes are not quite properly adjusted, or the angle of their hats does not quite suit the commander. All these little things are irritating, and the open life, the ocean and everything connected with the Navy breeds not only moral character but develops an independent spirit in the naval man. He feels he cannot stand much oppression or repression, but must speak out, and when ho does speak out the inevitable result is what the people in my neighbourhood call "clink," by which they mean, I understand, that he is sent for some days to prison.
I suggest the time has come in the Navy when we should, shall I say, temper justice with mercy, and try to get into the Navy the spirit of amity between commander and able-bodied seaman? We have the spirit of amity gradually creeping into industry, whereby masters are coming to recognise that a strike is not to be met by starving the people. In time we will recognise that the human touch is going to conquer the greatest obstacles, and if you introduce social welfare committees into the Navy you are going to have a direct channel of intercourse between commander and "worker"—I use that word, because the
men on the lower deck are workers in the sense that they do what we call the "donkey work." If you get that channel you will get harmony and good relations, and the spirit that the men on the lower deck are endeavouring to get into the Navy.
My Friend who has just left his seat hesitated to retail to the House just exactly what is contained in the men's journal called "The Fleet." I extract this from "The Fleet." for March of this year. It is a reliable and non-sensational journal. It says:
While we admit there are thousands of men in the Navy to-day leading comfortable and pleasant lives, there are others who are having a fair old hell of a time, due not to the Navy but to the idiosyncracies of individuals and the queer interpretation that they place on the word ' discipline.' This also applies to the naval depots. At Devonport Barracks the men are see thing with discontent.

Viscountess ASTOR: Oh, no.

Mr. GROVES: Well, it is not a statement of my own. This is an extract from "The Fleet," and, if the Noble Lady be more, competent to speak on the Navy than naval men, I will take second place. But that is the extract, and I have my own experience to add. I am sure the First Lord will not think I am taking an undue advantage in relating an incident which happened last week. I know a man in my constituency—or, at least, his wife is in my constituency—who is a seaman stationed at Devonport. A relative of his was dying, and he applied to his commanding officer for leave to come home to visit that relative. He did not get it. I took the necessary Parliamentary steps. The First Lord said it was not a matter for him to interfere, and I myself, as a Member of Parliament, wrote to the commanding officer. Such steps had to he taken before this ordinary able-bodied seaman was permitted to come home and see his relative, who had in the meantime died. It is incidents like that, or a series of such incidents, that lead to irritation, and the removal of these little pinpricks would lead to the harmony that I would like to see prevailing in His Majesty's Navy.
My hon. Friend also referred to the question of sleeping accommodation, and I want to speak on that because it illustrates something which I consider to be a disgraceful situation. The draughtsmen
and others who are responsible for designing these vessels design the accommodation in three approximately equal parts; one part for the flag officers, approximately 12 people; the second part for other officers, approximately So people; and then only a similar degree of accommodation for from 800 to 1,000 men. It is only natural that men who have given their time, their ability and their honour to a Service on behalf of the nation, when they find themselves in these surroundings—you can quite understand why many of these people are in revolt; I do not mean that in a bad way, but why many of these people are discontented.
I would like to submit to the Admiralty the idea that study and welfare rooms should be provided. I am sure there must be people at the Admiralty competent to devise ways and means whereby certain space should be set aside for Jack-Tar to be able to study on board. But I am sure we are all proud to know that in addition to all they have of valour and glory and honour, there are men in the Navy who are thoughtful and studious and we appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord to stimulate some activity in his advisers in order to provide them with opportunities.
Next I want to say a word on the rum ration. I speak as a life-abstainer, though I am not a prohibitionist, for I believe in educating the democracy to give up drink. I want to see a greater development of the inducement to do without the rum ration in the Navy. I have all my life been connected with temperance societies, and I was pleased to read that so many men in the Navy preferred to take the money rather than the drink. The First Lord need not be afraid with regard to hon. Members sitting on the Labour Benches as to anything he can do to induce those great moral-charactered men of the Navy to accept the money rather than the tot of rum, and I am sure any such proposal would receive general support from this side of the House. The point the lower-deck men have asked me to put is that, although the acceptance of the tot of rum is the common practice, I think all medical men will agree that to inflict this tot of rum upon the men immediately after they have partaken of their midday meal is a
wrong thing. If these men have to take stimulants at all, they should be allowed to take them later in the evening.
I hope the First Lord will grant the request of these lower deck men that the rum shall be served out later in the day and that anything that can be done to develop the general view that the men of the Navy are allowed to draw the money in lieu of the rum ration will be encouraged, because it will tend to their general uplifting. I have spoken quite honestly and sincerely with regard to the general tone of a large aggregate of human beings. They have grievances, and it is only natural for people to have grievances. Just as we have boasted and sang about the pride, honour and glory of our sure shield we must show that we understand the problems connected with the men in the Navy, and by meeting their grievances show that we are ready to make Britain's sure shield surer.

Mr. GIBBINS: With regard to what the hon. Member who has just sat down has stated, I would like to say that I am not so sure that the First Lord of the Admiralty is not more at home with a plough than a periscope. Of course that does not detract in any way from his ability to make a very capable First Lord. My object in rising is to draw the attention of the First Lord to the very inadequate compensation paid to the men who are discharged from the Service through disability. To reply to a question of mine the other day I elicited the information—

Mr. SPEAKER: I should like to point out to the hon. Member that the Debate must be confined to the terms of the Amendment which has been moved, dealing with the methods of rectifying the grievances of the personnel on the lower deck. Therefore, it would not be in order to go through a series of grievances.

Mr. GIBBINS: My difficulty is that the House may not appreciate my arguments if I do not give some examples as a justification for the grievances I am raising.

Mr. SPEAKER: That may be so, but the hon. Member cannot supply a catalogue of them. He may give one illustration and show how, by this Amendment, such a grievance might be removed.

Mr. GIBBINS: I do not wish to give a catalogue of instances, but I wish to raise a grievance which affects about 1,200 men. I will give one example. A man was passed as Al. He suffered 225 days illness, and he gets £ 21. This man has been ruined, and he is totally incapable of doing anything for himself. This man was examined six times by Admiralty doctors and five times he was passed Al, and afterwards he was discharged as totally unfit for service or work. No private employer would do such a thing to men who have given their all for the service of their country. We are voting money to keep the ships and the guns which are necessary for naval warfare in good order, and I think the very least this House can do is to insist that the men who gave their time and their services to the country should be treated generously and not thrown on the scrapheap.
As I understand that this matter can be raised upon another occasion I will not discuss it further at this moment. I notice in regard to some of the money to be spent under this Vote the regulations allow a certain number of grants in addition to retired pay, and every opportunity is given and every case is taken advantage of by the First Lord to pay money in this way. A number of them are allowed an additional grant to their retired pay, but when it comes to the lower deck it appears to me there is only a minimum of generosity merely because they are lower deck men. There are 1,200 very serious cases of disabled men and most of them have been discharged and shamefully treated, and I hope some consideration will be paid to these cases in the future by the Admiralty.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): I think I had better take this opportunity of replying to the speeches which have been made upon this Amendment. I will reply first to the point raised about the rum rations. It is perfectly true that in the majority of cases rum is given out at the mid-day meal, but I would like to point out that where there is a general desire expressed and arrangements can be made, and where exceptional circumstances exist there is no reason why the rum ration cannot be given out in the evening, and it is actually done in some cases. I think the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) was suffering
under an illusion, because it is a fact that if seamen do not take the rum ration they can draw threepence instead, and I think that is an inducement in the direction the hon. Member desires. I may say that it has been taken advantage of by about 35 per cent. of the ratings. No one is allowed to have the rum ration under the age of 20.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not time that we got off that? I know there is a bit of the Nelson touch still left in the Navy, and although we do not ask for total prohibition in the Navy, surely it is time that the Admiralty did something to give a lead in the direction of stopping it. It is not really necessary, and it is a temptation to some of the men.

Mr. DAVIDSON: I am afraid I cannot accept that view. We all regard certain privileges as precious, and one of those privileges is to choose ourselves what we eat and drink. I do not think it ought to be made compulsory for a man in the Navy to drink water or to drink beer. I will now turn to the series of questions put to me by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). With regard to accommodation on the ships, I think he exaggerated when he said that the accommodation on the average battleship was divided into three equal parts, one third to the Flag Officer, one-third to the other officers, and one-third to the men. The Flag Officer has not more than one-tenth of the available space and i be men have as much of the accommodation on the ship as it is possible to give them. It must be remembered that a battleship is built for war purposes, and T can conceive that if the 615 Members of this House were always here and only had the same accommodation as the men on the ships it would be inadequate for everybody's comfort. That, however, is one of the conditions which those entering the Navy have to face, and when a man enters the Navy he knows that these conditions exist. The reason why there is not more accommodation is, first of all, the needs of the ship; and, secondly, the size of the ship, under the Washington Treaty which I am sure we do not wish to criticise, has been limited. Therefore, any increase of accommodation in regard to the men must be limited by those facts. We must remember that the cruisers cannot be more than 10.000 tons.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Surely we could have a better distribution of what space there is.

Mr. DAVIDSON: Every possible effort is made to provide better accommodation for the men consistent with the needs of the ship. With regard to cooking, there again there is the same trouble. Everyone, officers no less than men, would like to see far greater facilities on board ship for cooking than are possible. Unfortunately the nature of the ship makes accommodation very scarce for all these things, but improvements have been and are being made in the fitting of steam ovens for keeping hot food, which has to be cooked early because men are on duty at different times; big batches come for food which must be ready for them at one time. There are difficulties. It is no good disguising the fact—but I can assure the hon. Member the Admiralty are not only aware of them, but are doing and are going to do everything in their power to mitigate the hardship as far as possible both in the ships and on shore. With regard to reading rooms, there are already reading rooms for men in a large number of ships. Certainly in all the new ships, including the cruisers under construction, reading rooms are provided. That is the policy we are pursuing, in fact it has already been started, on shore as well, but naturally on a ship of war you cannot expect a reading room on the same scale as you have it on shore. It has been introduced so that the men can go quietly and write their letters and read their magazines and correspondence when they wish to.
As far as the Naval Discipline Act is concerned perhaps I may say this. Unlike hon. Members opposite, some of us do not think that all men are equal. Certain people are possibly more virtuous than others and some less so, but, although there may be cases in which hardship is inflicted on a man by his commanding officer, though I know of no cases and I cannot admit it, at the same time it must be remembered that there are possibly some men who may deserve it. I should dislike to think that anyone could feel that the blame was all on one side when people are punished. It is not always that the man punished is not deserving of the punishment he receives. But so far as the administration of the Naval Dis-
cipline Act is concerned, I am confident that the officers of the Navy realise their responsibility and do not as a general rule inflict hardship where hardship is in fact a hardship and not a punishment. Leave-breaking is a serious thing—the hon. Member did not mention it specifically, but he hinted at it—because it may delay the sailing of a ship. It may also produce hardship on his fellow men in the ship who have to do the job of the fellow who is away, and I very much suspect, if you ask the naval rating what he thought of it, he would say it was deserving a punishment.
The hon. Member also referred to the manning of the ship in port, and said that one night in four might be given. A ship, so long as it is a ship of war, has to be in a certain state of preparedness for sea, and although the greatest possible amount of leave is given, there must be a minimum which cannot be exceeded purely from the point of view of the safety of the ship and the fact that it might in an emergency have to proceed to sea to deal with any situation, not necessarily a naval situation, which might arise. The hon. Member also dealt with the question of travelling facilities, and pointed out that it was a great hardship for a man who had returned from a foreign station to proceed home, at a cost of £ 5 or so, to see his family. I do not think there are very many cases of that kind, because, generally speaking, the naval rating lives within a reasonable distance of his home port. But, as I have already stated, he gets excursion fares—one and a third times the single fare for a full return, and, of course, boys get two-thirds of the single fare anywhere in the United Kingdom, a concession which is valued, and I do not think the State could bear an additional cost.
The next question the hon. Member dealt with was compulsory church attendance. That is a question which was considered most carefully only a very short time ago. Evidence was taken of the widest kind by the fighting services, and it was unanimously decided that in the interest of the service and the men themselves the rule must be maintained by which compulsory attendance at divine service on Sundays is still to hold the field.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: What was unanimous about it?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The committee that sat on it. The Navy could not act except in agreement with the other Services for obvious reasons. I am afraid there is no possibility, at least at present, of a reconsideration of the question, as it has been considered so recently, and I am not very satisfied, from inquiries I have made, that it would have a very general following in the Navy itself. The desire is not nearly so general as the hon. Member imagines.
So far as the submarine voluntary service in concerned, I want to make clear what has already been made clear by question and answer. Because the submarine service was small in the old days, naval ratings and officers were allowed to volunteer. But that did not mean that the naval officer and the naval rating were not just as much liable to be drafted into submarines as into any other vessel in the Navy, and now that the submarine service has so increased that it is more or less in proportion with other branches of the service, it is only reasonable that people should be drafted to it in the same way as they may be drafted to a cruiser, a battleship, a destroyer and so forth. I think the misunderstanding arose because service in submarines was spoken of as submarine service. It ought not to be called that. It ought to be referred to as service in submarines, the same as service in a cruiser or any other vessel. There is no question of the non-liability of either an officer or a seaman. They are both liable at all times to serve in submarines.
The Government at the last Election referred to the fact that they hoped to be able to introduce a scheme of widows' pensions. I cannot say anything on that topic except that it has been under the consideration of the Government ever since they took office. Any scheme of widows' pensions will include, I presume, pensions to widows of naval ratings in the same way as everyone else. Therefore it would not be right to deal with any Service piecemeal. It must be included in the general scheme. That, I hope, may be forthcoming at no distant date. I have only been a short time in office, but so far as lies in our power the welfare of the men will be a most
sincere charge upon our shoulders, and we shall do all that is possible. But I am not yet satisfied that the demand for many of these formulae which have been referred to is anything like general. Whether that is so or not, I have not been long enough in office to be able to make sufficient investigation, but, so far as the general principle is concerned. hon. Members can rely on everything that is possible being done on behalf of all ranks of the Service.

Mr. B. SMITH: I have listened with interest to the hon. Member in dealing with the question of pensions. While it may be a very admirable thing to embrace the widows of bluejackets in a broad-based scheme of pensions, the fact remains that the officer's widow does receive a pension. She is not to be kept waiting until such time as a broad-based scheme of pensions for widows is introduced. The note on a discharge, "D.D"—discharged dead—is good enough for a bluejacket, but there is a pension scheme for officers' widows. I am hoping very much the hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision, because obviously these men are taking more than the ordinary risk in boarding a ship of war. It is not only the elements they have to deal with, hut these ships are charged with explosive material, and any man walking into a magazine except with magazine boots on runs the danger of putting the ship in the air instead of underneath, and there are such risks on board a ship that if an accident arose the widows and Relatives of men who have lost their lives or are maimed should certainly receive a pension or some annuity.

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: The hon. Member does not understand the system. If a man is killed by an accident at sea, his widow gets a pension automatically. It is always allowed.

Mr. SMITH: Is it? I expect you know then if he dies at sea his widow should get a pension?

Sir A. HOLBROOK: Yes, I do.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. SMITH: With regard to the rum ration, the hon. Gentleman says he thinks he knows of cases where a tot of rum has been given out, not at two bells but probably at eight bells. I have never known a tot of rum handed out at any other time than two bells, and then it is called a one, a two, a three or a
neater, that is, it is altogether neat or there are one, two or three parts of water. I will tell the House one of the dangers of that. It is given after dinner. It is taken up and often the cook of the mess slides away with the pannikin and drinks the lot. It is quite true. That is bad for the men and it is bad for the discipline of the Navy. If it was given in the evening, when it could be treated as a social something and not as a medicine, it would be far better for the bluejacket and for the amenities of the Navy. With regard to cooking allowances. I have known aboard ship, where the officers have given a dinner aft, and the effect of giving that dinner has been that it has had to be raw food or partly cooked food for the bluejackets for that day, and on any man complaining, the officer of the watch would probably taste it and say he would report it in the proper quarter, but that was the end of it, I say that if you put these men aboard ship—and the ships of to-day are very cold ships—

Mr. DAVIDSON: There are officers' galleys on modern ships.

Mr. SMITH: On battleships, a gunboat would have them. I do not suppose a submarine would have.

Viscountess ASTOR: They do not give dinner parties on submarines.

Mr. SMITH: I want to come to the question of compulsory Divine Service. I have known the time—I do not know whether it goes on to-day—when they have been told to attend Church Service,

failing which they would have to peel the potatoes for the men for punishment. I have—despite the hon. Member's doubts —seen cards played at Divine service, that is aboard ship, because men are forced to do a thing which is unpopular. Where you have a voluntary desire to attend Divine Service, the very example set by the men who want to go would attract more real men to the service than the policy of forcing men to attend. I am not an irreligious man. I do not go to church every Sunday. I go occasionally. I go when I feel that the good of my soul needs it. It would be far better if the men on board ship attended on the same terms. It is because they are compelled to attend that they go without any feeling of respect for the Church or for the service. I would press upon the hon. Gentleman to do something to bring into being a system of Divine service in the Navy that will get the respect of the men and not the ridicule that it now gets. With regard to the Royal Fleet Reserve and the Royal Naval Reserve, surely equity demands that what is good for one reserve in the way of bounty or of pay is equally good for the other form of the reserve. Here we have one section getting £ 100 as against another getting £ 50. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to consider this from the point of view of equity. We are also asking from an equitable point of view that if you pension the widow of an officer you should pension the widow of a sailor.

Question put, ''That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 109.

Division No. 52.]
AYES.
[8.5 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Campbell, E. T.


Albery, Irving James
Blades, Mr George Rowland
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Blundell, F. N
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brass, Captain W.
Chapman, Sir S.


Astor, Viscountess
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Christie, J. A.


Atholl, Duchess of
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Atkinson, C.
Briggs, J. Harold
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Briscoe, Richard George
Clarry, Reginald George


Bainlel, Lord
Brittain, Sir Harry
Clayton, G. C.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brooke. Brigadier-General C R. I.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Buckingham, Sir H.
Cooper, A. Duff


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Jull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Cope, Major William


Bennett, A. J.
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Berry, Sir George
Burman, J. B.
Crolt, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Bethell, A.
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Crook, C. W.


Betterton, Henry B.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Galnsbro)


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Reiner, J. R.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Remnant, Sir James


Dalziel, Sir Davison
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y. Ch'ts'y)


Davidson. Major-General Sir J. H.
Hurd, Percy A.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Davies, MaJ. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Mldl'n & P'bl's
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Dlxey, A. C.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Doyle, Sir N Grattan
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cumber
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Crewe, C.
Jephcott, A. R.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Eden, Captain Anthony
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Savery, S. S.


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R. Sowerby)


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W)


Ellis, R. G.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Elveden, viscount
Lamb, J. Q.
Shepperson, E. W.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Looker, Herbert William
Smithers, Waldron


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Fermoy, Lord
Lougher, L.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Fielden, E. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Finburgh, S.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Fleming, D. P.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Storry Deans, R.


Forestier-Walker, L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Forrest, W.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Maclntyre, Ian
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Galbraith, J, F. W.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Gault, Lieut-Col. Andrew Hamilton
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Templeton, W. P.


Gee, Captain R.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen. South)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Manntngham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Vaughan, Morgan, Col. K. P.


Goff, Sir Park
Margesson, Captain D.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Meyer, Sir Frank
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Milne. J. S. Wardlaw-
Warrender, Sir Victor


Gretton, Colonel John
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Monseil, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M
Watts, Dr. T.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wells, S. R.


Hall, Lieut-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Morrison-Fell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Murchison, C. K.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Hammersley, S. S.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Harland, A.
Neville, R. J.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Hartington, Marquess of
Nuttall, Ellis
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Penny, Frederick George
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hawke, John Anthony
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wolmer, Viscount


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Perring, William George
Womersley, W. J.


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Slalyb'dge & Hyde)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Phillpson, Mabel
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Pilcher, G.
Wood, Sir S. Hill. (High Peak)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hilton, Cecil
Preston, William
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wragg, Herbert


Holt, Capt. H. P.
Radford, E. A.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Homan, C. W. J.
Ralne, W.



Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Ramsden, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—




Colonel Gibbs and Major Hennessy.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Day, Colonel Harry
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Ammon, Charles George
Dennison, R.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Duncan, C.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Dunnico, H.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Fenby, T. D.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Barnes, A.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Kelly, W. T.


Barr, J.
Gibbins, Joseph
Kennedy, T,


Batey, Joseph
Gillett, George M.
Lansbury, George


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln, Cent.)
Lee, F.


Broad, F. A.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lowth, T.


Bromley, J.
Gronfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mackinder, W.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Groves, T.
MacLaren, Andrew


Cape, Thomas
Guest, Dr L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Charleton, H. C.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Maxton, James


Cluse, W. S.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Murnin, H.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hardie, George D.
Oliver, George Harold


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Paling, W.


Compton, Joseph
Hay day, Arthur
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Cove, W. G.
Hayes, John Henry
Ponsonby, Arthur


Dalton, Hugh
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Potts, John S.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Henderson, T, (Glasgow)
Richardson R. (Houghton-le-Spring)




Ritson, J.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Stamford, T. W.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Stephen, Campbell
Welsh, J. C.


Saklatvala, Shapurji
Sutton, J. E.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Taylor, R. A.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Scrymgeour, E.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)


Scurr, John
Thurtle, E.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Sexton, James
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Windsor, Walter


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Varley, Frank B.
Wright, W.


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Viant, S. P.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Smillie, Robert
Wallhead, Richard C.



Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Warne, G. H.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Charles Edwards.


Snell, Harry
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

Question put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

The House divided: Ayes, 198; Noes, 108.

Division No. 53.]
AYES.
[8.15 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
MacIntyre, Ian


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Drewe, C.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Albery, Irving James
Edmondson, Major A. J,
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Makins, Brigadier-General E


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Ellis, R. G.
Margesson, Captain D.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Meyer, Sir Frank


Astor, Viscountess
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Atholl, Duchess of
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Atkinson, C.
Finburgh, S.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Fleming, D. P.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Forestier-Walker, L.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Forrest, W.
Murchison, C. K.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Neville, R. J.


Bennett, A. J.
Gee, Captain R.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Berry, Sir George
Goff, Sir Park
Nuttall, Ellis


Bethell, A.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Betterton, Henry B.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Perring, William George


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gretton, Colonel John
Philipson, Mabel


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pilcher, G


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Blundell, F. N.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Preston, William


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A (Brecon & Rad.)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Brass, Captain W.
Hammersley, S. S.
Radford, E. A.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Harland, A.
Raine, W.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Harrison, G. J. C.
Remer, J. R.


Briggs, J. Harold
Hartington, Marquess of
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hawke, John Anthony
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bull, Rt. Hon. sir William James
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertlord, Watford)
Savery, S. S.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hilton, Cecil
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Campbell, E. T.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Homan, C. W. J.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hope, Capt. A O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Shepperson, E. W.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Chapman, sir s.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Christie, J. A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smithers, Waldron


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Clarry, Reginald George
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Mldl'n & P'bl's)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Clayton, G. C.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jephcott, A. R.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Storry Deans, R.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cooper, A. Duff
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cope, Major William
Lamb, J. Q.
Templeton, W. P.


Crook, C. W.
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Looker, Herbert William
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Lougher, L.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Luce. Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Watts, Dr. T.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Wells, S. R.


Dixey, A. C.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


White, Lieut-Colonel G. Dalrymple
Wise, Sir Fredric
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Williams, Com, C. (Devon, Torquay)
Wolmer, viscount
Wragg, Herbert


Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Womersley, W. J.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Wilson, Sir C. H, (Leeds, Central)
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)



Wilson, R, R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Colonel Gibbs and Major Hennessy.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Ammon, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Smillie, Robert


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayday, Arthur
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Barker, G, (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayes, John Henry
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Barnes, A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Snell, Harry


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Stamford, T. W.


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stephen, Campbell


Bromley, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sutton, J. E.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Taylor, R. A.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kelly, W. T.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesboro. W.)


Cape, Thomas
Kennedy, T.
Thurtle, E.


Charleton, H. C.
Lansbury, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, F.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Clynes, Rt, Hon. John R.
Lowth, T.
Varley, Frank B.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Viant, S. P.


Compton, Joseph
Mackinder, W.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Cove, W. G.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dalton, Hugh
Maxton, James
Warne, G. H.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Murnin, H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Day, Colonel Harry
Oliver, George Harold
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dennison, R.
Paling, W.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Duncan, C.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Dunnico, H.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Welsh, J. C.


Fenby, T. D.
Potts, John S.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gibbins, Joseph
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Williams, T (York, Don Valley)


Gillett, George M.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield. Attercliffe)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Rose, Frank H.
Wilson, R. J, (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wright, W.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Scrymgeour, E.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Scurr, John



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Sexton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That 102,656 Officers, Seamen, Boys, and Royal Marines be employed for the Sea Service, together with 350 for the Marine Police, borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships, at the Royal Marine Divisions, and at Royal Air Force Establishments, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926.

Mr. CAMPBELL: I should not have spoken to-night on the subject of the Singapore base, had it not been that I have been prepared for some days for this occasion, and I did not like to take my cooked dinner home again with me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why should we have it? "] I do not think that Hon. Gentlemen will get indigestion at all, and I think they will, possibly hear something about the Singapore base from someone who, although he cannot speak so well as many others in the House, has had nearly 21 years of service within a few days of
Singapore, and who, therefore, presumes in any case to know something of the subject about which he is speaking. I have, since 1900, been a merchant and trading Vice-Consul in the Dutch East Indies, and, as a merchant, I stand here to-night to speak about the Singapore base from a trading point of view, because I have realised, during the time I have been out in the Far East, the necessity of protecting British trade, both in the Dutch East Indies and travelling to and from the Dutch East Indies.
I need not, I think, go into the history of Singapore very deeply, but possibly a few facts about that place, which was founded by that great man, Sir Stamford Baffles, some 100 years or more ago, may interest the Committee. At the time when he founded Singapore, the population was 300 souls all told. It is to-day 500,000. In 1824 the total imports and exports of Singapore amounted to about £ 2,000,000. To-day they amount to about £ 127,000,000, and nearly one fourth of
that, about £ 30,000,000, is to or from the Dutch East Indies. There is about £ 3,400,000 to and from China, £ 5,000,000 to any from Japan, and £ 1,500,000 to and from Australia, In 1919 I attended the centenary celebration of Singapore. The Governor, like myself and many other Gentlemen on these benches, was a Scotsman and in his speech he said that, when he was home in 1910, he told some people in Scotland that the tonnage of the shipping that entered Singapore was double that which entered Glasgow, Leith, Aberdeen and Dundee all taken together. I looked up that reference yesterday and I find that the tonnage is now nearly double the tonnage of the shipping entering the whole of Scotland. Those of us who are Scots will realise, therefore, the amount of tonnage entering Singapore.
When speaking of the imports and exports to the Dutch East ladies, I want it to be clearly understood that, while I was there for over 20 years—and I was there during the Boer War and the recent Great War—I never had anything but courtesy and civility, and no Britisher, so far as I know, has ever suffered any incivility at the hands of the Dutch. Perhaps you will not be interested in the Dutch East Indies, if you think that I am pleading that I should defend these Colonies for the Dutch. That is not my view. I mention these facts because I want you to see how tremendous are the British interests in those islands. In the reference to the trade to and from the Dutch East Indies I will speak from figures which I received recently from the Overseas Trade Department which used to receive the figures from me until recently. When I was Vice-Consul in Java I used to send my figures home, and they were taken by the Board of Trade to the Overseas Trade Department. So I thought that I would let them return the compliment, and give me figures; and I hope that they are as correct to-day as they were in my day.
The report, dated 19th July, 1924, of the commercial agent at Batavia, which is the capital of the Dutch East Indies, states that the total imports for private account in 1922 were between £ 60,000,000 and £ 80,000,000. The figures may be, interesting. Of that amount, 23 per cent. came from Holland and 44 per cent. from the British Empire, and no less than
16 per cent. came from the Straits Settlements. So nearly half of the imports are of British origin. The export?, which amounted to nearly £ 100,000,000, were not exactly in the same proportion. The exports to Singapore, to a great extent for trans-shipment, were 19 per cent., to Holland 16 per cent. and the United Kingdom 5 per cent. Of the shipping traffic in 1923 44 per cent. was under the Dutch flag and 35 per cent. under the British flag. There are in the Dutch East Indies no fewer than 500 harbours. Certainly only a few are what may be called first-class harbours. The rest are second-class or quite small harbours, but nevertheless they give an opportunity for ships of all sorts and sizes to enter these harbours and, as was shown during the War, more or less to do a certain amount of local damage.
You have trading to the Dutch East Indies from all parts of the world by various British shipping companies. I am not here to advertise the shipping companies or the insurance companies or the banks, but they are such companies as Holt's Blue Funnel Company, the British India Steam Navigation Company and the Union Steamship Company of New Zealand, and such-like companies, that carry on a regular trade to and from the Dutch East Indies, and as often as not through Singapore, or they take it, as the New Zealand Shipping Company does, from New Zealand to Java and then to Calcutta or vice versa. The population of those islands is no less than 49,000,000. Of that number there are 184,000 Dutch, 3,400 Germans, 1,600 Britishers, 809,000 Chinese, and a great number of Indians and others who are, to a great extent, our own subjects. I was surprised during the War to find that one of my principal occupations was signing the passports of Indians and others who were anxious to go to Singapore and on to India, and these are all subjects of ours. The 1,600 is the actual white British population, but added to that we have another very big population of Chinese who were born and bred at Singapore. There was, indeed, a Chinese-English school, and we had a large number of Singapore-born Chinese who lived in the Dutch East Indies.
Some figures as to foreign capital may be interesting. The Dutch capital is estimated at £ 158,000,000 and the British
capital at £ 50,000,000, and, according to the figures supplied to me, there are £ 16,000,000 British and £ 14,000,000 Dutch money invested in those islands in rubber and £ 3,000,000 British money is invested in tea. The Committee will admit, therefore, that the British capital invested in that country, and the British interests, are very considerable, and when one realises how near they are to the Straits Settlement, and the amount of traffic to and fro by small steamers, one must see that the Dutch East Indies depend a great deal on what is going on in the British Possession adjacent. I do not pretend to be a naval expert in any shape or form. I am not, like one of the hon. Members who spoke some time ago, a person who has never been to sea. I have been round the world from various places have travelled to the East via Suez and come home by South Africa. I have gone out by America, Japan, Hong Kong, Canton, Manila and all these places, so I know the geography of these places very well, and I may tell you that this is by no means a new proposition. I have discussed this self-same thing for years with Dutch authorities.
When as a youngster I was in the Dutch Indies, I was one of those who had to do compulsory service under the Dutch Government. I was a scutter—not a scooter—what you call in this country a compulsory volunteer. It was not until they found out, although I was in the ranks, that I knew my drill—I had been in the London Scottish—far better than my Dutch captain, that they thought they had better change me over, and they put me into the fire brigade. [HON. MEMBERS: "In kilts?] I was not in my kilts in the fire brigade, though it was certainly warm enough for them. To come back to Singapore. The Port of Singapore is getting more important daily. It is the gateway of the Far East, and it is surprising that the base has not been made long ago. When you consider the geographical importance of the position of Singapore and the amount of traffic that passes to and from and through the place, it is to me extraordinary that the base has not been constructed before to-day.
Some years ago when I was officially in the Straits Settlements. I had a talk with the highest officials of the Government, civil, military and naval. It was
unofficial talk and we did not know what were the politics of each other. As a fact we had nothing to do with politics. When I came home to England I was asked what were my politics. I had been proposed for a Conservative Club and I had to say that my politics were so-and-so. I had not thought of the subject for 21 years. An hon. Member says it shows how hard up they were last year. Let me tell him that practically before I had retired from the East I was a Member of the London County Council. Very soon after arriving in England I found out which was the right side on which to be. The whole question of Singapore is discussed in England from a political point of view. Out in the far Blast it is discussed from the standpoint of what is necessary, and, having been a business man all my life, I consider that it is merely a question of insurance.
One hon. Member on the Liberal Benches has said that we can have such a thing as over-insurance. I suggest that you can have under-insurance just as much. I am convinced, having been out in the East and in Singapore from time to time, when T have gone into the question on the spot, that all those who are true lovers of peace, all those who stand by the League of Nations—some hon. Members may laugh, but I mean it, and I am talking on facts rather than on fancy—all those who really want to support the League of Nations should vote for the Singapore base, because the mere fact that we have a strong base at Singapore will not be regarded as intimidation or aggravation by any people, but will be considered as quite the contrary. When in the Lord Mayor's Show you place police at certain points on the route, is that a provocation? It is exactly the same if you place this base at Singapore along the route from this country to the Far East. You are then doing your best to prevent war anywhere. The mere fact that we have a strong base there, with a strong Navy to back it up, is for the good of this country and for the maintenance of peace throughout the world.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I would like to make one or two observations, although I do not intend to follow the line of the last speaker. It seems to me that he has learned nothing in recent years, and almost forgotten everything, when he pleads for the Singapore base. He tells
us that we do not complain of police patrolling the beat and performing functions of that description; but he seems to forget that it is only because burglaries are likely to take place in these circumstances that the police are used at all. The only means of disposing of the fears that so many right hon. and hon. Members have is to make greater strides than have been made by the present Government towards international agreements. When territorial burglars and market burglars are on the prowl are we to look to the futile and obsolete methods of Singapore? We are always preparing for defence. No country ever admitted that it was the aggressor in any war. All countries fight defensive wars, and for the purpose of keeping themselves honest and caring for their own defence as a rule they provide themselves with a first-class set of burglar's tools. That seems to have been the chief reason why we have been spending so much money in the past on futile wars and preparations for war, but have always failed to prevent these wars coming. I think I am correct in stating that during the past 24 years this country has spent 15,000 millions of money on war and war preparation. We did not prevent war by that expenditure and we are no nearer peace to-day than we were before we began to spend that vast sum. Singapore, like the rest of the preparations, will be futile, and will probably provoke that mentality, that psychology or that atmosphere, which will lead us more quickly to war than anything else. I desire to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to Vote A, which deals with the total number of naval and marine officers and men and marine police to be borne on the Estimates during the year. One paragraph contains the words
Excluding officers and men lent for service under Dominion and foreign Governments.
I wish to know how many men were lent to foreign Governments; to which foreign Governments they were lent; what rates of pay they receive and what are the terms and conditions under which they work. Are they still on the British pay roll although lent to foreign Governments; and are we still footing the bill, though rendering service to some other nation? I also draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to Vote 1, in which an extra sum is allocated for recruiting pur-
poses. I observe there is an increase of £ 5,500 for extra recruiting expenses in the forthcoming year. Are we to understand that we are now to spend more money on recruiting seamen because the terms and conditions of the Service no longer appeal to our people? Is it possible that the chances in life for the average seaman are so poor when he leaves the Service that he no longer feels this particular duty to be as glorious as some would have him believe? It seems to me the preparations which the Department made prior to 1924 have not been such as to encourage the same number of men to enter the Service as was formerly the case, and that this £ 5,500 of extra recruiting expenses is necessitated for reasons which the right hon. Gentleman should explain when he replies on the Debate. It seems to me that the Department might do something for the men in the last year of their service, such as giving them a vocational education which will fit them for the battle when they join civil life. That sounds rather like a contradiction in terms, but nevertheless any of the 1¼ million people out of work will declare that there is some truth in my statement. If during the last 12 months of service the major portion of the men could serve in home ports and undergo a vocational training, there would be some hope for them after leaving the service.
I understand that civil employés under the Admiralty are not at the moment entitled to the same rights as the average civilian. I should like to hear the right hon. Gentleman's views upon that matter. If an individual is working for the Navy, to whatever artisan class he may belong, he ought not to be compelled to sacrifice his civil rights simply because he is a Government employe. I know the right hon. Gentleman will probably suggest that the late Government did nothing in this direction, but I would remind him that the short term of office of the last Government never gave them an opportunity of making fundamental changes. The policy existing when they took office was inherited from previous Governments. It was a bad policy and a policy which ought to be changed, and men who are rendering service as civilian employés, in the Admiralty or any other Department, should not be asked to sacri-
fice their civil rights. Further, I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman if anything is being done to give facilities to boys from elementary and secondary schools to have that type of training which will fit them for an officer's life. Too long has this been an exclusive department for the children of wealthy parents. While we have a Navy or an Army or an Air Force no one would deprecate the spending of money to enable boys to acquire the knowledge necessary to fit them for a useful officer career. One does feel that to make the officer class an exclusive class into which boys from elementary or secondary schools seldom enter leaves something very much to be desired. I think the last Government did something in this direction and I hope the present Government are extending the facilities which their predecessors set out to provide. While wealthy parents have to make a contribution towards the £ 700 a year, which it costs to educate a boy in one of the various naval colleges, once the necessary knowledge has been acquired by the boy and he becomes an accomplished officer his weekly or annual income is one with which that of the ordinary seaman compares very ill indeed. He receives such sums as repay his parents for the expense they have undergone, and it gives him a status in life which the ordinary elementary or secondary schoolboy seldom attains. I think these facilities should be equalised as quickly as possible consistent first with the money being available which you must spend for that purpose without; decreasing the general efficiency of the Navy. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give favourable replies to these questions and will satisfy us that a more democratic spirit is entering into the various departments of the Admiralty.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: I am well aware there are many Members of this House far better qualified to speak-on this subject than I am, but in common with every Britisher I am so impressed with the supreme importance of our naval strength that I am emboldened to make my first speech in this House on that subject. The Washington Treaty is now in being, and we must observe it. But the consequences of that Treaty appear to be very little realised by the people of this country. For the first time in our history as an Imperial Power we have
abdicated our sea supremacy. It has been a voluntary and spontaneous abdication which might be called a magnificent gesture of goodwill. So be it, but let the magnitude of the sacrifice be realised, and the need, not now of superiority but of naval equality, be fully recognised. For a century and a half, over all the waters of the globe, the British flag has done the world's sea work—salvage, both material and human, surveying, slaver-hunting, and police work—and all this has been done silently and with rare impartiality by our ships and our men. It can no longer be so, but if we cannot look after our interests and the interests of the world, we can, at any rate—and it is our bounden duty to do so—look after ourselves.
We, in this country, flourish or we starve according as our ships sail or stop. Ships and shipbuilding go to the very root of our Imperial problem, and the dockyards of England to-day are, for the most part, idle. We were informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour the other day that over 33 per cent. of our naval dockyards trained and skilled strength is unemployed, and that large numbers are working on short time at the present time. I can hear my hon. Friends opposite say: "Why should not these men be turned to commercial construction," but can they be? There was published the other day in the "Times "a striking letter, which I have here, from the President of the Scottish Institute of Engineers and Shipbuilding, and in this letter he demonstrates clearly that the work for the Navy enabled the shipyards to have men of exceptional technical ability, and the contribution which the warships gave to establishment charges enabled these shipyard organisations to build merchant vessels or a commercial basis. If these orders are stopped, the country cannot expect that, after a long period of time, with the workmen on the streets and the shipyards left bare, those men and those yards will be ready for a national emergency. It is a wise precaution to see that the means of production, both as regards plant and technical skill, should be kept in a state of efficiency. The truth of this has been illustrated in the last few weeks. Two big shipping contracts have gone to Germany. In one case the German tender was £ 300,000
lower than any British offer. We cannot build ships to compete because our shipyards are being allowed to become unused and derelict at the present time.
It is to me, and to any hon. Member representing a dockyard constituency, a matter of the gravest possible concern that in these Estimates, now before the House, there is no provision made for fresh construction. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, no doubt, if he were here, would reply that he requires the money for social reform. Social reform is all very well, but what kind of social reform? If it means mere palliatives, it is, in my view, the falsest of false economies. Prevention is better than cure. We want more than a method of doctoring. Men want work and wages, not idleness and doles. My Liberal friends, who should be below the Gangway opposite, are a mournful illustration of the danger of relying solely upon curatives. We want to stop the illness, instead of summoning the doctor. Naval construction is more than a cure. It is, of itself, a preventative, and, I think, only second in importance to new construction is the speeding up of the construction now proceeding.

9.0 P.M.

The cruiser "Frobisher" was laid down in 1916 and not completed till 1924. It took eight years to build. The cruisers "Effingham," "Enterprise" and "Emerald" were laid down in 1917-1918 and are not yet completed. The destroyer flotilla leaders "Broke" and "Keppel" were six years under construction. What an appalling waste of time this is. What can be greater folly than to turn out ships which are, if not absolutely obsolete when they are turned out, at any rate somewhat out of date? I hope we shall not hear of this being done in the future. By refusing to keep an adequate Navy, we are not only jeopardising our Imperial position, but we are undermining our commercial shipbuilding capacity, injuring our trade and throwing out of work large numbers of trained and highly skilled men. I wonder if my hon. Friends opposite really believe that this paralysis of our naval construction is saving money. The money that was once spent in paying wages on Clydebank, so ably represented by hon. Members opposite, is now paid in doles to men
grown sick in spirit for the want of honest work. Is this lip service to Pacifism worth the deliberate destruction of human material? Will the little money that you save buy you flesh and blood and brains in the days when you need them? Will your dole-degraded men build you ships when their yards are closed and their hands have lost their skill? It is well to think of these things, for they are the domestic results of the neglect of an Imperial duty.

We were returned to power as a party pledged to a policy of Imperial defence adequate to our Imperial needs. I need not go into figures—that has already been done—but a prudent man insures his property, and we are the trustees of a great people, a great trade, and a great Empire. Our Navy is our insurance and our only insurance, and the question we must ask ourselves is: Is it adequate to its needs? Does it cover the risks involved? In proportion to the responsibilities it bears, it is weaker than the Navy of any other Power in the world to-day. Japan and America are far ahead of us in fast cruisers. I have the figures here. Japan has 16 of 33 knots to our two; America has 10 of 35 knots and we have none; America has now 295 torpedo craft and we have 203; and they have 116 submarines to our 61; and at present rates of construction, they will have, by 1929, twice as many of both. In the Mediterranean, where our strongest fleet is based, we have only six submarines while France has 21 in full commission and three in reserve. French air strength is notorious. The question we must ask is: Are we going to face this issue squarely, or are we going to shirk it? No one desires an armaments race or a provocative naval policy, but we do desire safety, and we do want to prevent our dockyards and our men from becoming derelict. When you find, as you must find, that the Singapore base and increased construction of light craft not only serve to guard your Imperial interests, but also give work to your men at home, the case, I think myself, and I am sure hon. Members must agree, is irresistible.

When all is said and done, a man had better build a battleship and have bread than preach Pacifism and starve. Even my hon. Friends opposite saw the truth of this argument when they were in office,
because, in spite of every Pacifist principle and every platform pledge, they sanctioned the building of five new cruisers. Surely, they will help us to carry on this good work. But, if they will not, it is clearly our duty as a party to honour our pledges. In the past, we have not been unmindful of our Imperial obligations, and now to-day, fresh from our greatest victory at the polls, I strongly urge that we should, by increased construction, make our Navy adequate for its vast work. By so doing, we shall not only keep faith with the people of this country, but we shall revivify our shipyards, give work to our men, and do our duty to those great Imperial Dominions, who, albeit somewhat anxious-eyed, look to us with trust and loyalty to provide that security and to safeguard the foundations of our great Empire.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: If we are to have a Navy at all, large or small, I agree that it ought to be an efficient one. If we are to have efficiency, the sailors and the engineers must have the best conditions that it is possible to give them, and they must clearly understand the position in which they are placed, and the conditions under which they join the service. A month or two ago my right hon. Friend issued an order which rather astonished the chief engine-room artificers, and the artificers generally in the Navy. Hitherto, we have understood that men joining the Navy really join the Navy for service on the surface, and not so much for going into the air or diving into the depths of the sea. I asked my right hon. Friend a question as to that order, and he informed me that work in connection with the submarines was service which everyone who enlisted in the Navy was bound to undertake. I have no doubt that, technically, that is so, for I am quite aware of the fact that sailors have been used as soldiers very effectively, as a naval brigade on land, and therefore, I assume that, technically, they may be sent up in the air, or down in the submarines, as the right hon. Gentleman has now decided. But that Regulation, or Order, came as a great surprise to artificers in the Navy. They had understood, hitherto, that those who were to serve in submarines were to be men who volunteered for the job, and I would like
to know whether the new Order has been made necessary by the fact that volunteers for the work were not coming forward in sufficiently large numbers, and, if so, what were the reasons why there were not volunteers?
In any case, I want to point out to my right hon. Friend, that even if the sailor engineers are supposed technically to serve in this capacity, it is psychologically a bad order. After all, men who have volunteered for submarines must be temperamentally men who are prepared for that sort of work. Large numbers of men who joined the Navy as engineers, not understanding that they were to be engaged in that work, are not temperamentally suited for that purpose, and those who are prepared to volunteer, and those who have volunteered in the past, are very much perturbed at the idea that they are going to have pressed men sent with them into these submarines. We can understand perfectly well the feelings of the men. I question very much if there is not a large number of members of this House who would not care very much to go in an aeroplane, far less go down in a submarine, not because they are afraid, but because temperamentally they object. May I be allowed to tell an experience of my own, by way of illustration, during the War period. It was my duty to go to Farnborough. While there I had the opportunity, of which I availed myself, of going up in an aeroplane. The man who took me up looped the loop and tried to frighten me, but altogether, it was a very pleasant experience as far as I was concerned. When I went to a large meeting of engineers that evening, I received an ovation. I said, "What is that for?" The answer was, "Because you went up in an aeroplane." I said, "Will not these men go up?" They said, "No." Although they were making aeroplanes, they were not themselves prepared to go up. They had different reasons, some not being temperamentally fitted; others would not risk going above terra firm; and a number objected that the machines were made on piece-work, and so would not go up.
There are the same feelings on the part of the men who have been utilised in these submarines. Men who are willing to offer themselves for the work are the very best men you could possibly have for that work. But if you are going to im-
pose on those men other men who are not willing, are timorous, or not fitted for the work, I unhesitatingly say you are jeopardising the lives of these men and the safety of the vessel itself. I asked my right hon. Friend a question as to the matter, and he informed me that he had heard of no dissatisfaction. I was astonished when I got the answer. I am aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction arising out of the order. To make this order effective it should apply to all new enlistments, and not to those already entered on the Navy List.
I want to say another word in connection with the submarine, and I am finding fault with no officers. My hon. Friend who spoke here to-night said something about the rum ration. I would like to know when an officer is told off to take charge of a submarine, which is going out of port, how much notice he gets. I am not pleading that you should enforce temperance upon the officers, or taking the line of teetotalism, but I have heard that there have been festive occasions in various ports the night before vessels were going out, and I feel thoroughly convinced in my own mind that these festive occasions the night before are not good for those who have to go in these vessels, nor safe for them. ! would like to see some Regulation, not of a permanent character, but simply a Regulation that would keep their temperance firmly established for a night or two nights before they went in the submarine. Further, knowing, as we do that there is more oil-burning in the Navy than ever before, and that every officer in the Navy must sooner or later be an engineer, the danger is enhanced, more especially if the commander of the submarine for the time being be not an engineer in that capacity.
I would like to ask another question in relation to coastal motor boats. From the name, one would suppose it to be a boat that goes round the coast. That is no longer the case. These boats, as I understand, go out of sight of land. They are mere shells with very heavy engines, "50 horse-power, and the men employed on them are employed in very dangerous circumstances. I believe it is possible for them to get gassed by fumes, and the vessels carry gas-masks. I am told, also, that when a boat is going from
30 to40 knots, men have to get off one boat, and step on to another. Is anything going to be done in connection with the coastal motor-boat service as is done in the case of the submarines? Those men have to pass a medical examination. When they go in submarines, they get an extra allowance. Those in the coastal boat service do not, and I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to take into consideration the circumstances in which these men work. That is all I have to say on these matters. I am perfectly certain that we want more consideration for those employed in the coastal motor-boat service, and also we want something done as to the regulation that has been issued by the Admiralty to which I have referred. I again urge that the order should not be applied to the present staff, but to the newly-enlisted men.

Mr. STORRY DEANS: I have a Motion on the Paper on Vote 1 to reduce the amount by £ 100, but as I think there is very little chance of that Vote being reached at a reasonable hour when the Committee is prepared to listen to reason—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—I am taking advantage of this present Vote to make the observations that I had in mind. I am one of those who cannot agree with the policy of the Government in postponing further naval construction. Loyal party man as I am, and as I confess myself to be, I feel that I ought to make a protest against this Government following a course which has never been followed by the Conservative party whether it has been in office, or in opposition, ever since anyone can remember. Obviously, it requires no argument at all to show that our trade routes must be insured against interruption. We are not like any other country in the world of which I know, because no other country is absolutely dependent upon its overseas trade for its daily food. When you talk about the fleets and cruisers of other countries, as hon. Members do talk, they forget, it seems to me, that the cases are in no way comparable. You cannot, for example, compare the position of America which can feed its own population for an indefinite period, with the position of this country which can only feed its own population for between a fortnight and three weeks in the year. To me it seems
simply madness that we should leave ourselves without an ample margin of security.
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) is not here. He talked about over-insurance. It all depends upon your anxiety as to what you wish to insure, or what you are insuring against. What we have to insure against is that very horrible thing, the prospect of starvation. In no other country does the naval problem present itself in that light. In no other country does the Navy represent an insurance against the people perishing for want of food. Our Navy represents that insurance. Therefore, I say it is perfectly idle to say that, because you do not apprehend an attack from this or that nation within, at any rate, a short period, therefore you should not keep a reasonable amount of naval construction going from year to year. It is quite true that to-day, so far as anyone can see—we all hope it will last for ever—there is no prospect of any war, or any sort of hostilities with any country. There is no prospect of it so far as I, or anybody else, can see.
But war, and the causes of war, may spring up in a year or two, and you cannot improvise cruisers; you cannot improvise ships of war. We can and we did improvise a magnificent army. The martial spirit of the British people will always improvise an army, but the martial spirit, or any other spirit, of the British people cannot improvise a Navy, cannot improvise a single ship of war. Therefore it becomes necessary for statesmen to consider in advance the problems of our country and our Empire—particularly of our country, because it is so very vulnerable—who will in advance insure us against all possible risk of ever having our food supplies effectively attacked. What I am saying are mere commonplaces that ought to be present in the minds of every Member. This is not a matter of mere party politics. The Navy never ought to be a matter of party politics.

Viscountess ASTOR: Hear, hear!

Mr. DEANS: I am very glad to find that, in spite of the advice of their one time allies—who have now almost disappeared—the Labour Government did provide what it honestly considered to be
adequate new construction last year. That Government was superior both to the pressure of the pacifists behind them and the party men sitting at one side of them. So it should be. The Navy ought not to become a mere matter of party politics. What is more, the provision of a strong Navy ought not to be a matter which is made secondary to any other consideration whatsoever. I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not in the House, because I am going to say this: that when I am attacking, as well as I know how, the Government for this strange dereliction of duty—contrary to the wishes of their party, contrary, as I believe, to the opinion of most hon. Members on these Benches, contrary, as I believe, to the views of the party in the country—I am not really attacking the First Lord.
I discern in this the clammy hand of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the prodigal son of the Conservative party. He has at long last, when his father's house has once more become prosperous, returned to that house. He has put on the best robe; the fatted calf has been killed in his honour, and yet he seems to hunger after the dry husks which he used to share with the hon. and right hon. Members who sit, or ought to sit, on the benches opposite. I should advise him, if I might presume to give him humble advice, to be content with the traditional fare of his father's house; and one item in that traditional fare is a strong Navy, a Navy adequate for the needs of the country and the Empire. If a weakened Navy is the price of the right hon. Gentleman's support to this party, then I say that the price is too high The Conservative party managed to reach a very satisfactory victory at the polls without any very conspicuous support from the right hon. Gentleman, and the Conservative party can equally reach another victory at the polls, for that accession to the Opposition benches of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. R. MacDonald) spoke, will not, I think, come just yet. It will not be for a very long time. I say this, that whatever a Chancellor of the Exchequer is at the Treasury the Conservative party cannot afford a "Little Navy" programme, and quite apart from the Conservative party
the country neither desires, nor ought to have, a Navy which is allowed to become subject to attrition from the perils of the sea and other causes; and the country should not be allowed to suffer under the apprehension that there is not a sufficient margin of safety in the matter of cruisers for the protection of its commerce and its essential food supply.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: We have in front of us an item of expenditure which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty explained has to be taken by the world as the index and measure of love of this nation for peace. We have a right to know from him, and the world outside has a right to know, before he describes this nation as the most peaceful nation if he can produce in the records of the last 125 years any other nation that has waged so many wars as Great Britain. We have a right to know, the world has a right to know, from the right hon. Gentleman the name of any other nation which during the last 125 years has taken the lives of so many people of other nations in war, or for the sake of keeping law and order, as the British nation during that period. We are told that our love and friendship for everybody in the world is so great that we have very few enemies, or yet we always choose to have a Navy capable of battering down the heads of any of our friends; and that we have always successfully managed to do so. The right hon. Gentleman seriously put this to the world as if the whole world is as thoughtless as he was at the moment he was speaking—that as there is no more land to be grabbed, we want no Navy, no Singapore base, because of it.
Again I put the point, that there is no nation who during the last 10 years has grabbed half as much land as the British nation. A former Chancellor of the Exchequer used this phrase a few years ago—and incidentally the nation has acquired more land since the phrase was used—that we did not want anybody's land. I do not mind the Government asking for the Singapore base if they will honestly state the purpose for which it is meant. It is no use talking of the defence of commerce. Is there a single instance in the history of the world of a peaceful trading ship going across the ocean under the flag of Britain being suddenly attacked and seized by other nations? Where is a
trading ship attacked? Why is your trading route—and God knows what it is—in danger? The world is round, and every spot of surface on the world can be described as the gate to somewhere and to somebody's country. The Straits of Gibraltar are a gateway because it is a narrow neck of water. The Cape of Good Hope is a gateway because it is at the head of a vast expanse of ocean. Colombo is a gateway because it is in the middle of the Indian Ocean, and Singapore is in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, and is somewhere something. You can always find an excuse for describing everything as a gateway leading to somewhere which we as a peace-loving nation can always attack because they must be in our possession.
But I think the Admiralty has overlooked one serious point, or perhaps they have pretended to overlook it so that other nations of the world may equally overlook it, and the taxpayer of this country may also overlook it. What is this Singapore base? It does not exist to-day, and therefore it is described as something which is going to be put up for the defence of the Navy in time of war in than area. But once the Singapore base is constructed, how will it be described? It will be described as one of the most valuable assets in that quarter of the globe, an asset which we must defend and preserve at all costs, and the Singapore base, instead of being an additional factor of safety to the Navy, will be something for the Navy to save and fight for. In time of war Singapore is going to be valuable to you; it will also be valuable to your enemies. Your first necessity in time of war will be that as Singapore, with its naval base and dockyard of a valuable character, will be the object of attack by your enemy so you will be equally eager to safeguard it at all costs. You are creating in that part of the world not something that is going to help your Navy, but something that your Navy will have to maintain and guard. From that point of view we shall go on increasing naval expenditure. At the present moment, we are told, there are' some battleships in that area, and that in case of repairs they will want to retire to Singapore. After two or three years we shall not be surprised if we are told that it is now necessary to post more warships in that area, because we must take care of our valuable docks at
Singapore. That is the history of the military expansion of all the militarist nations, however they may pretend in words to be peace loving and peaceful, and with no intention of attacking any other nations in the world.
I will pass now to the subject of naval ratings. We have been told about the efficiency of the Navy and of the men. What is efficiency? What is discipline? There is a superimposed discipline, and there is an imparted efficiency; and there is at the same time a sort of internal discipline and a sort of internal efficiency. Efficiency and the spirit of discipline depend more on the object for which they are to be used than upon the method by which they are imparted or imposed. If these men were to understand that this was an interest which is their own interest, and not somebody else's interest, they would be inspired with a spirit of efficiency and discipline quite different from what naval officers now impose upon naval ranks. [HON. MEMBERS: "What do you know about it?"] What do I know about it? I admit that Battersea is not noted as a naval port, though half of Battersea has the honour to be represented by a very valiant naval officer. But what do I know about it? As a member of the Communist party I have greater knowledge of what the Communist system of human freedom in the Army and Navy does for the discipline of the men than any member of any other parties. I will read, Comrade FitzRoy—[Laughter]—Captain FitzRoy, an opinion expressed jointly by half-a-dozen British citizens of the highest reputation, whose experience of human life and whose daily contact with the masses of the working class of this country is far superior to that of most employers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] That will-come by-and-by. This is the opinion expressed after a close examination of the Russian Red Army and of the Russian Red Navy, and of a particular study of the freedom that is given to the men and the great result it has produced. These British citizens express themselves like this, in print:
In consequence, the difference of bearing of the Red Army or Navy man from that of his Western equivalent is most marked. One can see at a glance that pains have been taken during his training to stimulate intelligence, to develop consciousness of his rights as a human being, and to bring out individuality. All this is in sharp contrast to the practice nearer home, and for
an exactly contrary reason, in order to create a force consciously ready and eager to defend the workers, its own fellows, against either outside or inside attack.
That is taken from page 87 of the report of the trade union delegation from Great Britain to Russia, written by my comrade Purcell, for whose absence the House is the poorer. This is an example of the new man that we want in the Army and Navy. It has been one of my electoral pledges that I shall always do my utmost to see that the soldier and naval ranker ceases to be a mere Robot under the orders of the officer, that he should be a human being conscious of his duties to himself and others, and that he should certainly cease to fight for things that are not to his interest and are even against his interest.
We have heard of many evils and many troubles of the common people of this country in several Debates in this House, and yet we are told that this is the nation that possesses a very powerful Navy for the defence of our homes. This very powerful Navy and Army are helpless to defend the homes of the poor, who are living in slums, against the tyrannies of landlords. This is the nation which has got a very powerful Navy for the defence of the homes of the poor and for the defence of your food, and yet this is the Navy which is unable to safeguard the necessities of the down-trodden masses against wicked profiteers, who deprive the children of their food. This is a naval force which is supposed to be maintained in a state of efficiency and discipline by a tyrannically-imposed discipline by officers bullying the men. A day must come when the right view of life will be taken, and when these men will see that their Navy really defends the food of their own children, when the naval men will see that this Navy really is to protect their homes against the exactions of landlords, and when these men will be fired with a different spirit of discipline and of efficiency.
Again the question might be asked, "What do you know about the requirements of the naval rank and file?" Again I answer that I belong to a party which has taken considerable pains about this. Only a fortnight ago no less than 14 naval men—I mean it was published a fortnight ago, but it was a little before that—no less than 14 naval men, of considerable experience as bottom dogs in
the Navy, put their heads together and formulated the demands as the men themselves feel and see. It is no use giving training of a sort to men from the point of view of the necessity of others. We have a wrong notion that we produce an efficient Navy by depriving the men who are really the Navy of the very elementary rights of British citizenship. After all these naval workers are primarily workers, and if they are workers why should they not have the same rights and privileges as other workers have to form themselves into a bona fide trade union and affiliate with other trade unions?
It is no use trying to convince those human beings that they are different from the others, and that they are not as British as hon. Members of this House, and have not got the same sense of responsibility. They are not such a senseless lot that if they were given the right of combination and trade union rights they would not use them for their own protection just as efficiently and wisely as other British workers do in their own trade unions for their own purposes. These men themselves have set down the political demands of the naval ranks, the first being the right to form and join a trade union of the usual type. They also want their friendly societies to be composed of the men themselves free from any intimidation.
I stand open to correction, but it has been reported recently that an Admiralty Order instructs the commanders at all ports to have an officer representative of himself present at the monthly meetings of the lower deck in connection with these societies. I do not know if this is correct, but if it is we should like to know the intention of the Admiralty. Where men are meeting together as human beings and not as members of the Navy particularly or doing any naval duty, but meeting on shore as human beings, what is the object and what is the motive to issue instructions to the commanders at all ports that they must have an officer present when the men are discussing their own affairs? If it is correct, I submit that it creates a mentality in the men opposite to what you desire in an efficient Navy of self-respecting human beings.
Among the demands and requirements of the men there is nothing new which is not known, and which is now allowable
to those very men if they were in other civil occupations, and we do not see why the Admiralty should take a jealous view that these rights, if granted to these persons, would be a danger to others when similar rights are enjoyed by other British workers and are admitted to be a British institution in regard to which the country takes a pride. The men demand that in the naval service the age of 18 ought to be recognised as one at which the rights of citizenship should be available. They require that there shall be no intervention by sailors in industrial disputes, and also the right to refuse to act as blacklegs in industrial disputes. There should also be an abolition of courts-martial, and naval courts should be organised on the basis of full rights of British citizenship with a jury composed of three men's representatives, one petty officer, and another.
The position is that these men are praised at one moment and rammed down as being inferior beings at another moment. In case of a man in Great Britain being charged with having committed a crime or having done anything wrong, he has got the light to be tried by a jury of his own fellow-countrymen, and what has the man in the Navy done that he should not have the same right and protection to be tried by a jury? Why does this seem startling? It is not because the men are wrong in this demand, but because the mentality of the ruling classes is wrong, and because the privileges of the working classes have been so long abused that they are now reluctant to claim them.
I will not tire this Committee with all the details, but I will still touch upon certain important points. With regard to married sailors, I think they ought to receive the marriage allowance. We have been told that there is no distinction made between the officers and the men. Is it not a fact that at the present moment there is a Regulation which entitles sailors over 25 years of age to the marriage allowance, and it is denied to married sailors under that age. Why is this restriction placed upon these men? We have heard something about rum, beer, and water, and we have been told that the Government does not wish to compel men to drink water or to encourage them to drink rum in preference to anything else they like.
Why do the Government want to compel men under 25 years of age to remain unmarried or discourage them from marrying by not granting them a marriage allowance? Something has been said about the Church service. Why should there bo a compulsory Church service for the sailors? They do not want any longer, either in the Army or the Navy, a sort of church parade, and there should be no compulsion in this respect.
As long as men attend the church parade and attend their devotions under compulsion it is degrading even to those who would have done it out of their own sincere belief. The men who put forward these demands go further. They want established genuine bona fide clubs, recreation clubs and other institutions conducted and controlled and managed by the men themselves. They want the removal of the Y.M.C.A. and other institutions which, under a religious cloak, are only retailing Conservative politics throughout the country. I would ask hon. Members of this House who are interested in the full programme of these naval demands to read the "Workers' Weekly" of 6th March. The price is 2d. Members of the Government can have it free by sending Scotland Yard to raid their offices.
May I conclude my remarks by appealing to the Committee to begin to discard their illogical conclusions when they apply them to men other than themselves? In the first place, if you talk of powerful navies and of shipbuilding do not talk of your love of peace. Do not talk of your love of friendship with other nations. It is far better, and the country would be far better, and at least more honourable in the eyes of the outside world, to plainly admit that you still choose to live as the biggest bully in the world, and for that purpose you want a big Nevy and a Singapore base. We are told we must construct many ships. If you construct many ships you must man them. You must put naval ranks on them. We have had many sneers about the dole. A soldier and a naval ranker who draws his pay without doing his job is equivalent to a man kept on the dole for unemployment, and after paying the dole to the soldier and the naval force you create a sort of psychological necessity to pitch him into a war so that he rightfully earns his living. That is the
only logic of it. If you say that we are keeping a soldier and paying him with no intention of using him as a soldier, that we are keeping a large Navy with the professed object of never going to war, then you are simply maintaining a large number of men on a dole of the worst type. It is much more honest for you to admit that you have still decided upon a plan to live as the biggest bully in the world and on that account you want a powerful Navy, and if you keep a Navy for such a purpose it must be composed of Robots and not of men with equal rights of citizenship.
10.0 P.M.
It would be unnatural and inhuman to expect that for the benefit of some city merchant, either in London or on the Liverpool Cotton Exchange, men are going out to Singapore to fight when their families do not get sufficient food and clothes and a house to live in which could decently be called a house. It is no use pretending that the Navy is kept for the benefit of the families of those who make up the Navy. It is no use pretending that it is serving any useful interest of life for them and their families as things go at present. I appeal to the Government to throw off the mask of pacifisim and not put themselves in the position in which our last Government placed themselves. Do not pretend to be pacifists. Do not go out and say you are building a Singapore base for the benefit of other people, to keep law and order on the waters of the sea and see that the fishes are not quarrelling. But for goodness' sake say the American money maker has beaten the British money maker hollow and now the British money maker has to seek other parts of the world to see whether he can find other people more innocent than the American. Now you want to shift over from Gibraltar to Singapore as the centre of your piracy. Why not be candid and tell the world what you are about to do? If, on the other hand, you want to tell the people of the country that the Army and the Navy are for the interest of the human beings of this country, for goodness sake be logical and admit that the first interest of these men is their own self-respect and personal liberty and not efficiency on your behalf, and the full personal liberty of action of speech, of joining any club or political
movement they desire to join should be granted to them. If admirals can go to Trafalgar Square and deliver fulsome speeches to the British Fascist, why should the members of the Army and the Navy in the lower ranks not be at liberty to join the Communist party and carry on a Communist propaganda?
If these men's eyes are opened as to the mean and low purposes you are using them for they will not agree to join your Navy. If you have not the fear in your heart why are you so afraid of letting them join their trade union or any political organisation of their own choice and let them freely read the papers and pamphlets which could be made available for them? I again put it that the Government, to ask for such Votes, must now openly tell this country, as well as other countries, that the purpose of all these Totes is to be ready to fight. They must also say quite openly that those who are ready to fight must not only foresee chances of a fight but must also bring about chances of a fight in order to take advantage of the chances of personal interest for which they are prepared. The last Labour Government was chicled for giving up the Singapore project, and the First Lord of the Admiralty suggested that it was a gesture of peace which was very futile, which did not produce any better atmosphere. Why? What is the evidence? The evidence is that the shipbuilding programme as laid down at Washington is still being carried on at almost full measure. I submit, without meaning to defend the late Government as against the present Government, that the naval programme was not affected by the magnificent gesture of the late Labour Government, not because the gesture was considered to be of no value but because the outside world knew the precarious position in which the Labour Government was, and because the outside world had no guarantee that the Conservative party was not coming in in a short time to undo everything that Labour had done. That is the position which gave a signal to the outside nations of the world to carry on with their programme as laid down at Washington. It is no use saying that the action in withdrawing from Singapore of the late Labour Government was not appreciated. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who by?"] That is
the very question which should give you conviction of the moral value and strength of the action of the late Labour Government in regard to Singapore.
The Dominions attached to the British Empire were disastisfied with that action. The other nations of the world on that account appreciated the action of the Labour Government all the more as of greater moral value than it would have been if the Dominions had not protested. It was a forcible picture before the world that the late Labour Government, in abandoning Singapore, were not surrendering something that was of no value to the Imperialist nations throughout the Empire, but they showed that in place of an Imperial solidarity they were ready and prepared to teach the various component members of the British family the art of living at peace with other nations instead of living at war and preparedness for war. To say that the great moral lesson is being wasted is to offer a very incomplete observation on the events of the past twelve months. The whole value of any move for peace must rest, not on the surrender which you can easily make but on the surrender and sacrifice that you are prepared to make with reluctance and against your self interest. The condemnation by the Dominions of the late Government's act in the matter of Singapore, though it startled some of the so-called patriotic British citizens, had ail the higher moral value in the eyes of the outside nations who thought that here at last rises a new spirit in Imperial Britain by which a section of that great nation is now prepared to face the risk of telling the members of their own family: "We ought to live as brothers in this world, not by bullying others or by saying that we have got big battleships and big docks out in the East, but by saying that we are sincere and mean to do no harm to others and confidently hope that no one is going to do harm to us." Unless we fall back on the international spirit of propaganda and give to the men serving in the Army and the Navy the same human rights and rights of British citizenship, unqualified and unmodified, as each Member of this House presumes to enjoy for himself and considers himself fit to enjoy, unless you do that, all the arguments of to-day are false arguments by a Government that will require, and soon will come here to ask for, a powerful Army to terrorise over the world.

Mr. WALDRON SMITHERS: I appeal to the sympathy of the House, for I am trying to make my first contribution to its Debates I appeal with all the more force because my father who died a few months ago sat on these benches, and I hope the House will allow me to pay this tribute to his memory. I notice, Sir, that you are allowing this Debate to take a pretty wide scope. I am not an expert, and therefore shall only deal with the Navy from a point of view of an ordinary layman. I hope, although I may not be able to put my points as forcibly as the last speaker, that I shall be able to put a quite different point of view. In view of the fact that a Cabinet Committee is sitting to discuss naval policy, in view of the fact that these Estimates include no provision for new construction, in view of the fact of the weak childhood of the League of Nations, when it is as yet unable to carry out its ideals, and of the fact, of our geographical position, I venture to ask the Government, are they absolutely satisfied, even with the slightly increased Estimates, that in consultation with their experts the policy they have laid down is adequate to keep this Empire and this country well within the limits of safety? There five some risks that the Government of this country dare not take, and one is to reduce the British Navy below the safety point. Every effort is being made, and rightly so, to bring about a better and more peaceful state of things in Europe and the world, but I do ask the Committee to remember that it takes three years at least to build a battleship, three years to train a seaman gunner, and seven years to train a responsible naval officer. What living man is there, including even the great man the Leader of the Opposition, who will dare to say what our relations with this or that Power will be six or seven years hence? This country has one line of defence only; that is, the Fleet. The British Army is for use on land and for the defence of our Empire. It can only operate so long as it has the shield of the Fleet. Whatever may be the future possibilities of the Air Force, it is a fact and is acknowledged that any attacks from the air may be very annoying, but are not necessarily vital, and that those attacks can only be met by similar attacks on enemy bases. The food of this country comes by sea,
and it is the ways of the sea that must be adequately protected. There are two ways in which a country can be crushed. It can be conquered or it can be starved, and this latter condition applies more acutely to this country than to any other country in the whole world. Without a superior fleet, this country would cease to count as a power. Whatever hon. Gentlemen opposite may say, the real reason why the opinion of this country carries so much weight in the Council of the League of Nations, and in fact in the councils of the whole world, is because of her Fleet, and because of her tradition. Every foreign Power knows if we have established, as we have, and if we mean to maintain, superiority at sea, as we do, that it is in no spirit of aggression or adventure, but it is an elemental duty that we owe to our Empire, to maintain beyond reach and beyond risk, our industries, our commerce and our home.
Without going into the motives of other nations, the hard fact remains that other navies do exist in the world. Other nations know their own business best, and this is not the time to go into their motives, but no country can have the same justification that Great Britain has for a strong and efficient Navy. If the navies of all the foreign Powers were to go to the bottom to-morrow-, those foreign Powers would still be great powers, and would be comparatively safe. Not so with us. With our Navy gone, without a strong and efficient Navy, this country ceases to count as a Power, and OUT usefulness in the world will be gone. We are trustees for our world-wide Empire. It is not by any chance that His Majesty the King rules over the Empire, the greatest force for good that the world has ever seen. The reason for this greatness is that there is a something in the intiative and the character of the people of these islands which has been able to produce a commonwealth of nations where the conditions of life, on the whole, imperfect though they may be, are the highest and best the world has ever seen; where we have a Parliamentary system which is the envy of the whole world: where we have a system of justice presided over by Judges unequalled throughout the world; where we have a system of business and finance which holds the confidence of the world,
whose foundation-stone is stability, and which is only made possible by the existence of a strong Navy—a system run by men of business who are prepared to take business risks and trade with the whole world, who initiate the employment of thousands of men and women, and who are the largest contributors to our bill for national expenditure. None of these things would be possible without the confidence inspired by the existence of a strong and efficient Navy. I once assisted at a scene in the City, at another House to which I have the honour to belong, when Admiral Jellico made an official visit. He was called upon for a speech, and he stood up before four thousand men. All that he said was this:
I thank you for your kind reception, and I may tell you this, that without the city of London there could not be a British Navy.
This was received with loud cheers, and when he got silence he said, equally simply:
And without the Navy there would not be a city of London.
Ours is an Empire where the citizen has more individual liberty and more individual rights than ever before. Lord Balfour has truly said that no country which is not true to its past can ever hope to succeed. We are the trustees for our Empire, and we must be in a position to move troops rapidly to any part of that Empire that is liable to attack, especially in view of the malignant propaganda against civilisation which is going on in the world, encouraged and fostered, as it is, by some people in high positions in this country; and it is quite possible that some politicians, who get their political ideas from the revolutionary element in foreign countries, who wish to see the downfall of this great, beneficent Empire, may think that one of the ways to arrive at their object is to undermine the British Navy, to try to create a public opinion that she is no longer necessary and to engender fanatical opposition and raise hopes which may even take the form of voting against these Estimates. There is a real danger that impatient and fretful men, swept off their feet by indignation and enthusiasm, may destroy more than they build.
Following the advice which the Prime Minister gave us on 6th March, I think that the presentation of the Navy Estimates to Parliament is one of the occasions when this House ought to show that it has the requisite qualities of head and heart. We have to try to give the country a lead. We have to try to look at facts as they are, and not to fancy them as we should like to see them. I am one of those who believe that the British Empire, under divine Providence, would not have been allowed to attain its present greatness unless it had a divine mission to perform in the world. And, when you consider that the future of the world will be largely influenced by human ideals and passions, it is a good thing that the men in whose hands the destinies of the world rest shall have the steadying influence of the knowledge that there does exist a strong and efficient British Navy which will only be used as the implement of peace and justice. Without any boasting, I am but stating a plain truth when I say that the strongest implement for peace and justice at present is the British Navy. The League of Nations is a young and tender child, and to give it at this stage of its career work which it is, as yet, incapable of performing, would be to do the League great harm.
May I say a few words about the Navy in its relation to trade? Mainly owing to the sacrifice of life and treasure made by all classes of the community in this country, in the Great War, we are faced to-day with economic and domestic problems of the first magnitude, such as unemployment, shortage of houses, and trade depression generally. Whatever some politicians may say we have to realise that the qualities which made this country great are the qualities which are now required to restore our prosperity, those qualities being the initiative and enterprising character of our people, combined with the spirit of self-sacrifice, effort and service. We have to realise that the man of genius is the captain of human progress, and the elder brother of him who lags behind, and not, as hon. Members opposite would have us to believe, a bloodsucker and a parasite. We have to realise that the present system of doles and State aid cannot go on for ever. They are the means, and perhaps the necessary means, of tiding over a difficult time. The President of the Board
of Trade told us the other night that we could never hope for better social conditions in this country unless we regained and restored our overseas trade. With the permission of the Committee I will read some lines which put concisely and much more quickly than I could do what I want to say.
Merchandise ! Merchandise ! England was made,
By her men and her ships and her Overseas Trade.
Widen your harbours, your docks and your quays,
Hazard your wares on the seven wide seas.
Sail on a Plimsoll that marks a full hold,
Your Overseas Trade means a harvest of gold.
Trade your inventions, your labour and sweat:
Your Overseas traffic will keep you from debt.
Hark to the song of shuttle and loom:
'Keep up your commerce or crawl to your tomb.'
Think of what Drake did, and Rayleigh and Howe:
And waste not their labours by slacking it now.
Work is life's currency—earn what you're worth,
And send out your ships to the ends of the earth.
If this be true, and I believe it is, the development of overseas trade is the only permanent solution of our present economic conditions. This can be realised only in the knowledge that His Majesty's ships are on the seas and if the merchants and traders of the country can with quietude and confidence send out their goods to the ends of the earth. What the people of this country want to-day more than anything else is the spirit of the British Navy, the spirit of facing hardship and difficulty in quietness and confidence, of facing realities and shouldering responsibilities with a determination to overcome them without squealing and without asking for help: the team spirit of a crew which acknowledges the call of duty and service and comradeship and the necessity for discipline, the spirit which seeks to overcome difficulties, as opposed to the spirit which would alleviate them or smooth them over. For all the reasons that I have tried to give, I respectfully ask the Government to be firm with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially when the new construction Estimates come on
later in the year. No reasonable person would desire to lay out a penny more on the Navy than is absolutely necessary for safety, but below this we cannot go because peace—peace, I say again—is the first interest of the world.
The money spent on the Navy is not thrown into the sea and is not nonproductive. The money spent on the Navy is directly productive of employment and is an important factor in our overseas trade, since trade always follows the flag. I unhesitatingly say that public money was never put to better use than that expended on the recent world cruise of Admiral Field, and that to be spent on the proposed visit of the Prince of Wales to South America. Successfully to run an organisation such as the British Empire requires men of breadth of vision, of high ideals, with a courage to rise above party, with a sense of responsibility and with a statesmanlike view of the future. It requires exactly the kind of spirit that is developed by men who go down to the sea in ships. My last sentence may sound a little like tub-thumping, but it is meant from the bottom of my heart as opposed to the last speaker. I say that the British Empire is the main arch upon which civilisation rests, and on which alone a more glorious and better edifice can be built, and the keystone of the arch is a strong and efficient British Navy. With the Psalmist, I would say to our beloved country
Thy way is in the sea. and thy path is in the great waters,
and I would remind the House of the children's grace during the War, which is true to-day—
For what I have just received, thank God and the British Navy.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by 100 men.
I am sure I will have hon. Members with me when I congratulate the hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat on a very eloquent maiden speech, which I am sure was appreciated in all parts of the Committee. In the course of his remarks he said there were two ways of crushing a country, conquest and starvation. I would remind him that there is a third way, that is, to slowly crush it by excessive taxation. At present there are many economists much more learned
in these matters than I am, who look with grave apprehension on the continued level of high taxation, and who say that if it continues we shall gradually lose our commercial position and that trade and industry of which the hon. Gentleman has just spoken. It is for these reasons my friends have asked me as a protest against these increased Estimates to move a reduction of 100 men in this Vote. It is true the Estimates are up by only about £ 5,000,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "Only!"] Yes, but there is a great deal more to come. I must welcome the action of the Government in granting the marriage allowance to officers, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who has, I can see, fought a good fight in this very noble cause. I am also glad that reference libraries can be supplied to men-of-war, though I must remind the right hon. Gentleman we have had those reference libraries for many years in the Navy. The hon. and gallant Member for Galloway (Sir A. Henniker-Hughan) will bear me out that not only have we had ships' libraries, but every ship is allowed a school allowance, out of which any books can be bought which the officer in charge of education cares to lay in. I am reminded of the story of a candidate for Parliamentary honours in a dockyard constituency, who was asked if he was in favour of hammock ladders for the men, because such ladders were not supplied by an unfeeling Government to enable the men to get into their hammocks. The candidate said that most certainly the moment he reached the House of Commons he would raise the matter. He showed about as much knowledge of that part of the internal economy of the ship as did the right hon. Gentleman on the question of libraries on board ship. However, that is the only other increase of expenditure which I, for my part, welcome.
I stated that the increase in the Estimates was only £ 5,000,000, but, as was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), we have not yet got the shipbuilding part of the programme. The last speaker said he hoped the Government would be firm with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe every taxpayer in the country hopes that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be firm with the
Government, and that he will get support from this House. What the shipbuilding programme is going to be no one can tell, not even the Government themselves; but, obviously, if the Government are going to carry out the declared policy of the Prime Minister in the past new construction will have to be commenced. Of the present construction I said last year I considered the five cruisers were unnecessary, and I repeat that view now.
Still more unnecessary is the present expenditure on the building of the two battleships "Rodney" and "Nelson." We are the only Power in the world today building battleships, and as soon as these two battleships are built, four magnificent Dreadnoughts will have to be scrapped, sunk, broken up, under the terms of the Washington Convention. Therefore, although we are building two new vessels at a very big cost—I suppose, with their guns, we shall not get off for much under £ 10.000,000 or £ 11,000,000 for these two—we shall immediately have to scrap four vessels which are good for many years' service. That £ 10,000,000 or £ 11,000,000 which those two battleships will cost would put us on an air equality with France to-day. While there is no visible danger at sea that I or anyone else can point out, the real danger comes from the air, and until we get a better arrangement over Europe, and a general limitation and reduction of armaments, that is the Service that should be strengthened.
With regard to Singapore, we are only at the very beginning of the expenditure. We are discussing the matter at length on Monday, and I only want to refer now to the financial aspect of the question. There are no air defences at all there, and not a single aeroplane of any sort, and obviously there would have to be great expenditure in that direction, and there are only one battalion of infantry and one battery of artillery, and it is obvious that there will have to be considerable expenditure there. Although this year we are only making preparations to send a floating dock to the new base, it is not yet decided whether or not there is to be a graving dock. It is obvious that the Admiralty policy is a graving dock. The advantage of a floating dock is that it can be moved about, and that its position cannot be accurately
known, whereas a graving dock could probably be blown to pieces by hidden guns on the Malay Peninsula within a very few hours of the outbreak of war. A graving dock in Singapore will be immensely expensive, and, furthermore, we shall have to provide a great building scheme for the extra workmen, both for constructing the base and the men who will afterwards work in the repairing yards. The housing conditions in Singapore to-day are perfectly appalling. The whole island suffers from overcrowding and a great housing shortage, and it is obvious that churches, schools, hospitals, recreation clubs, and all the rest will have to be erected for the spiritual and material comfort of the workmen and others whom we send out.
The expenditure this year is only in the nature of a token Vote, and we are by this policy embarking on a tremendously greater expenditure in years to come. The reason, of course, is strategical. We consider that the real centre of strategical importance has shifted to the Pacific, and, therefore, we have to provide bases in the Pacific for the Fleet, but I can get no word from the Admiralty, except promises of investigation, as to the resultant saving that should take place in regard to the dockyards at home. We built one great dockyard as the result of the shifting of the centre of strategical importance to the North Sea, at Rosyth, and the other dockyards were built in various wars at various times. If we are going to go in for this great expenditure at Singapore, we must surely look for considerable savings in the home dockyards, and I hope the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) will realise that fully when she votes on Monday for Singapore. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler) also will carefully consider that matter before he casts his vote. Supposing the floating dock is to cost £ 310,000, what it will cost by the time it is towed out and established at Singapore, with the ancillary buildings, and so on, on shore, we have no means of knowing. However, it is the lesser of two evils, though it is, nevertheless, a very grave evil in these days.
I am sorry the Prime Minister has gone out, because I was going to close my re-
marks with a suggestion. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will bo so kind as to note the suggestion. Part of our expenditure is directly due to the building in France of a great many submarines. That must be taken into consideration, together with the building of submarines in other countries. At the Washington Conference, I believe I am right in saying, we, the Americans, and the Japanese would have been agreeable to the abolition of the submarine altogether. After all, it has been abolished in Germany. Germany has none; she is not allowed to build them. The same principle might be applied with great advantage all over the world. What prevented it at Washington was the attitude of the French naval representatives, there. If we are to embark on any policy of pacts or security in Europe, we have to consider our own frontiers, which happen to be the Seven Seas of the world, and I think we could well ask for a quid pro quo from France with regard to the attitude that country should adopt towards the submarine at the next Washington Conference, which is, apparently, foreshadowed by President Coolidge. I must say, from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks in the earlier part of the afternoon, I did not think he was quite so sympathetic towards the idea of a new conference at Washington for the future limitation of vessels not touched by the previous conference. I hope I have done him an injustice, and that he will correct that matter when he comes to reply.

Commander BELLAIRS: I am glad to find one point on which I can unreservedly agree with the hon. and gallant Member, and that is that we should abolish the submarine altogether. It was France that objected when we offered, at the Washington Conference, to scrap the finest Fleet of submarines and personnel the world has ever seen, and France since then has steadily refused to ratify the Root Resolution dealing with the horrors of submarine warfare. I had intended to deal with the question of France having failed to ratify the resolution, but. at this late hour of the evening, I would prefer to postpone any observations, on the chance that I may get an opportunity of speaking on the discussion on the Protocol on Tuesday.
I do not know whether I ought to congratulate the Liberal party on being
united almost for the first time in this or the last Parliament, but that they should be united on a question of common hostility to the Navy and to naval expenditure is hardly a matter upon which to be congratulated. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) attacked the Singapore expenditure. I think he forgot that he was a Member of the Coalition Government which first adumbrated the idea of the Singapore dockyard, and under which the Imperial Defence Committee approved of that dockyard. Had the Coalition Government continued in office the expenditure would have been proposed to this House by his Government. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the present time as being a time, when employers and employed were coming together, but added that it was impossible for them to come together with this crushing naval expenditure and naval taxation. But he knows perfectly well that the naval expenditure is merely an insurance, and that but for that naval expenditure in the past there would be nothing for employers and employed to come together to consider.
We were told by the right hon. Gentleman that Singapore could at: present dock cruisers, that these cruisers could defend our commerce, and that, therefore, there was no necessity for docks to take bulky ships such as our big capital ships. I should recommend him to read one or other of the text books, such as those of Mahan, and he would then know that cruisers and destroyers cannot function unless they have the protection of a great fleet to fall back upon, and that our cruisers and destroyers in the absence of a base in the Pacific would necessarily have to abandon it and be hunted, just like the Germans were hunted by our Fleet, and they could not possibly function without a fleet to fall back upon, nor could any of our trade in the Pacific function unless there was a great fleet in the Pacific if there should be a war.
We were asked by the Leader of the Opposition to deal with Singapore on Monday. The right hon. Gentleman said he would deal with Singapore on Monday, yet he gave us a great deal about Singapore in his speech, thereby getting an advantage such as accrued last year
when he spoke two or three days in advance of the general discussion on Singapore. He said that to proceed with Singapore was going to upset the whole equanimity of the East. He said he had high authority for that. He said it was being so said in the bazaars. I do not attach much importance to talk in bazaars. I wonder if the high authority to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was the hon. Member for Harrow in the last Parliament, who subsequently contested a Birmingham seat and lost it? At any rate, the answer is quite clear. Why did the Japanese leave Singapore out at the Washington Conference? They objected to Hong Kong. They were told we were going to extend our dockyard at Singapore. They made no objection whatever to that. Therefore, I contend the Japanese have no real objection to the dockyard at Singapore, which is over 3,000 miles from Yokohama.
In the most oracular manner we were told by the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Opposition that we had to deal with probabilities and not with possibilities. I agree that is true of a battle or campaign; but it is not possible for any statesman to forecast the future 10 years from now. The right hon. Gentleman assumed the role of the prophet. If he looked back on former statesmen who have endeavoured to foretell the course of foreign politics, and peace and war, he will find they have made ludicrous mistakes in reference to these subjects. I could give a good many instances, and since there are rumours, even from our own side and our own Government, that we are going to base ourselves on forecasts instead of a one-Power standard, I venture to recall the fact that the Conservative party unanimously, in years that are gone, made a forecast in regard to Heligoland. They said, "We have always been in alliance with Germany, we have never fought Germany, and she will never have a great Navy," and they gave up Heligoland, with the acquiescence of all the other parties, and no protest was made. We are told that because we have been in alliance with Japan and never at war with Japan, that, therefore, war with Japan is inconceivable.
I say that we have no right to base the safety of our Empire and our trade on such a doctrine. It does not cost anything to prophesy, but it may cost the
country a great deal if statesmen and leaders of the Opposition venture on such forecasts. We are told by some members of the Liberal party that there was an obligation of honour that we should not fortify Singapore. The real obligation of honour at Washington was the agreement with our Dominions. We said we would build the capital ships and take care of the Dominions. They are precluded, under the Washington Agreement, from building capital ships until the year 1933, and they depend on us for their defence. If we do not go to their defence, we practically say to these Colonies, who have a common policy with the United States of America in regard to the immigration of Asiatics, that we abandon them—as we do abandon them if we do not build the Singapore Dockyards and have a fleet in the Far East—and that they must rely on the United States, as Senator Lodge suggested they should.
I invite the Government to say straight out: are they going to build on the idea of the standard adumbrated at Washington, that we should be tied to the five-to-three standard in capital ships as against Japan? It was well understood that our position was peculiar, dependent as we are on seaborne food supplies, and we are entitled to a much greater proportion than five to three in all other classes of ships. I am much disturbed in mind by a paragraph which appeared in the "Times" less than three weeks ago. It laid down three propositions, authoritatively as the facts. The Government were going to have an inquiry; and we have been told that to-day. We have to wait for that inquiry. Secondly, the Government were going to make a gesture, and in the third place, that the Government wished to see what takes place at the Armaments Conference before they laid down any ships, or proposed any ships. I submit that we in this House should have a programme submitted to us before any conference on disarmament takes place; that we should then pass the necessary Appropriations, found by the Cabinet Committee to be necessary, and that we should not lay down any of the ships until that conference has taken place. You are in a far stronger position if you can go to the conference and say, "We are prepared to abandon these ships," than if you use the threat of
saying, "If you do not agree with us, we shall start a programme of building ships." The gesture has never yet succeeded when it is put forward as an example. It failed in 1906, it failed in 1907, and it failed in 1908, and I would remind the Prime Minister of what he himself wrote to the Singapore demonstration in the City of London. He said:
What is true is that any neglect to provide for ordinary security is interpreted as a sign of weakness by other nations, damages our prestige, causes the gravest anxiety to our kinsman overseas, and encourages those countries which are not favourably disposed towards us. The Prime Minister has stated "—
he is referring to the late Prime Minister—
that the abandonment of this project is a moral gesture to the world. We know what effect moral gestures by the Liberal Government had in the years immediately preceding the outbreak of the great War.
The same argument applies to any moral gesture by which we refuse to lay down ships when those ships are found to be necessary by the experts of the Admiralty, and the Cabinet agree with the experts. The real success of the Washington Conference was caused by the fact that America had 14 battleships in hand, in various stages of construction. Mr. Hughes announced that they were ready to abandon those 14 battleships if the other nations out down their programmes, and the result was a success.
We had an investigation, as various speakers have pointed out, on which the Government came to the conclusion, in October, 1923, that we should lay down eight cruisers and a large number of other ships of various kinds—depot ships, submarines and destroyers. If that investigation was a full investigation, there is no necessity for a prolonged investigation now, seeing that we have exactly the same Cabinet, with the exception of three members. All the facts are before us. The Labour Government announced in March of last year that they were going to have an investigation. They must have had the facts before them, and those facts are now before the Government of the day, and I cannot see why the Prime Minister should say there will be a long delay in arriving at a conclusion.
After all, the Budget depends upon this naval programme, which will commit the
country to a large expenditure both in personnel and material next year. If you once take off taxes, there is the greatest possible difficulty in putting them on again, and it puts the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a parlous position if he has got the taxes off before we have the naval programme. I think it is reasonable for any Cabinet to say to all the fighting services, "Is your expenditure vital, or is it merely useful'? If it is merely useful, the country cannot afford it; but if it is vital, and you can prove to our satisfaction that it is vital, then we must afford it." The second point is we have got to avoid peaks of expenditure in particular years. Therefore, the Departments are entitled to look well ahead for several years in succession, but let them remember this point, for there is a point at which the unemployed come into the question, though we should never build ships for the sake of relieving unemployment. The unemployed come into the case in this respect, that if a number of ships are going to be built we should avoid those years of good employment and high costs, and we should endeavour to order the ships when costs are low and unemployment is rife. Another point where it comes in is this. But for the ordering of the two battleships last year we should have lost the art of building turrets in this country, because we were losing our skilled men. The Admiralty is wise in distributing the employment so that we shall not lose all the skilled men we have.
There are two five to three standards, one of the relative strength of Japan, and the other is one of expenditure. We have to spend £5 to every £ 3 we spent before the War because of the different values of money, and when we talk now of cruisers we have to build a much bigger standard than five to three, and applying this test, it is ludicrous to accuse the Government of excessive expenditure. I would like to take a short series of tests, and first of all I will take personnel. The Japanese have 73,000 men in the Navy. If you apply a five to three standard to our Navy, we should have 121,000 men, but we actually are providing a little over 102,000. The late First Lord of the Admiralty in the last Conservative Government and the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, told the House on the 21st January, 1924,
that all our cruisers would be worn out by 1935, and that we must have a programme for replacing them.
If you consider them from the point of view of speed, the Japanese outnumber us in cruisers of over 33 knots, built, building and projected by 16 cruisers. The Committee is probably aware that the Washington Conference produced a new Dreadnought type of cruiser, because it sanctioned 10,000 ton ships with 8-inch guns. If you compare Japanese cruisers with twelve 8-inch guns with any of those with 6-inch guns which we possess, you will find if you compare the bursting effects of the shells that the Japanese cruisers have 30 times the total bursting effect of the shells of any one of the 6-inch gun cruisers which we possess. If one of our cruisers met one of these Japanese cruisers, the disparity would be much greater than was the case of the "Revenge" against the Spanish fleet which could not get into action with our ships, and it would be sheer murder to send those cruisers against Japanese 8-inch gun cruisers. We are to have five of such ships to the Japanese eight, and it is obvious without requiring any Cabinet Committee that we should have a considerable margin over the Japanese. If you have a fleet you have to have three cruisers with every two capital ships. Japan can detach cruisers from her fleet at any given moment, whereas we have to keep them with the fleet always, as we had to do with the Grand Fleet.
Another test you can apply is to take the number of ships in full commission, leaving out the capital ships and dealing only with cruisers, destroyers and submarines which can attack commerce. We have 145 ships in full commission, as compared with 155 of the Japanese. That is to say, the Japanese have, of cruisers, destroyers and submarines, 10 more in commission than we have, and yet hon. Members opposite accuse the Government of extravagance. Of cruisers, destroyers and submarines which can attack commerce, which have been laid down since the Washington Treaty, or projected, we have laid down or sanctioned only eight. The Japaness have laid down or sanctioned 81, or 10 times as many. Hon. Members will say I am taking a Pacific outlook. The basic facts which have forced on us a
Pacific outlook are the opening of the Panama Canal in 1914, the great Japanese programme, and the adoption during the War of the aggressive policy by Japan towards China. I do not believe any more aggressive demands have ever been made in the world's history. The Japanese question never came up formerly, because in 190V we possessed nine times as many capital ships as Japan, therefore, there was no question of any possibility of hostility between the two countries. People say our naval manoeuvres are provocative when we have small manoeuvres in the Mediterranean. The Japanese last year had manoeuvres in which 194 vessels took part, manoeuvres on a bigger scale than any tactical exercises we have held since the War. An argument was advanced by some speakers on the Liberal Benches that there was an honourable understanding at Washington that strength would not be added to. The honourable understanding was that we limited the number of battleships. It was always an understood thing that the number of cruisers and destroyers bore a definite proportion to the number of battleships. It is Japan and France who have broken that honourable understanding. Japan has doubled the strength of her cruisers and submarines, and added no fewer than 32 to the strength of her destroyers. I very much regret that I should have to refer to Japan, but it is inevitable. Just as we had to make increasing reference to Germany from 1906 onwards, so as these armaments go on we shall have to make increasing reference to Japan.
I do, with all my heart, support a disarmament conference. I was the first to draw attention to the resolution of the American Parliament by which they struck out in 1922-23 no fewer than 16 cruisers and substituted an invitation to the President to call a conference on disarmament. They repeated that resolution in their Navy Appropriation Bill in 1923-24. The Government always met it with the answer that things were not ripe and that France would never agree. It does not matter to me two pins whether France agrees so far as the holding of the Conference is concerned. We should go into that conference and if any nation shows herself to be responsible for preventing the world from reducing armaments, that
nation should be pilloried before the whole world. I hope that when that conference is held it will be held in the most public manner so that we may know who is responsible for the increase of armaments in the world.

Mr. AMMON: I do not propose to detain the Committee for more than a few minutes, having regard to the fact that it has been decided that the position of the Government on Singapore can be challenged on Monday. There are only one or two points that I want to put to the First Lord of the Admiralty. He gently reproved us for the fact that he found that he had got to call for a larger number of men this year, and he alleged that sufficient provision was not made last year for the ships now building. That is not quite accurate, because the provision was made, as he rightly said, that a certain number of fresh men should be taken on, and that the personnel of the other ships should be made up by withdrawals from elsewhere, but it was also taken into consideration that before the ships were built there would have gone out of commission quite a large number of others which would have released men in order to take up the positions that would be then vacant. I want, if I may very respectfully, to congratulate the Government, on pursuing a policy which he rightly attributed to the last Government of providing vocational training for the men. We are glad to know that it is being taken up. May we. also press, in regard to what we endeavoured to put into operation in the last year, that as far as possible men should be allowed to work in borne ports so that they could take the maximum advantage of the institutions, technical and otherwise, to complete their education. We can also feel some satisfaction that the present Government are pursuing a policy with regard to marriage allowances for naval officers which the last Government took. They appointed the Goodenough Committee, which, I understand, has reported favourably to the Admiralty, and from the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman to-night the Admiralty have decided to press it upon the Treasury, and in so far as this is concerned, ho has the support of this party, which initiated it and will be glad to see it carried through. I just want to differ
slightly as to one remark the right hon. Gentleman made with reference to the shipbuilding programme of other countries. He endeavoured in that to point out that we were pursuing a very much different policy from what other countries were with regard to naval armaments.
As I have said, other countries and this country are bound by the terms of the Washington Treaty. If other nations are building largely, it is simply because we have the larger complement of ships of war, and it is not aggressive building by those other nations. The other two points I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman are in regard to the large staff at the Admiralty—the large staff compared with the diminishing size of the Navy. The last Government set up a small Committee to inquire into the whole question and to see what reduction could be made in some quarters. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether these inquiries are being pursued and carried out by the present Government?
Inquiries were set on foot to see whether it was possible to provide for children from humbler homes having the opportunity to enter as cadets with a view to becoming officers in the Navy, and certain proposals were adumbrated, but there was not sufficient time to carry them through. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could give us some information with regard to that. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), whom we are glad to see has returned so vigorous from his journey to the East, made some reference to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who, he said, had no right to criticise the Estimates now before the House, those Estimates being up because of my right hon. Friend's agreement with regard to the cruisers last year. The only comment I would make on that is that, if the right hon. Gentleman is preaching consistency, consistency will become a virtue that is practised by very few, for one must bear in mind that the right hon. Gentleman himself was a member of the Government which first initiated the Singapore programme which he himself condemned a little while ago.

Sir A. MONO: I beg the hon. Member's pardon, but I remember perfectly
well that, at the time when I was in the Government, the Singapore question was often discussed, but no decision on it was ever taken.

Mr. AMMON: I repeat that the Coalition Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was so distinguished a Member, were the first to initiate proposals with regard to Singapore. With regard to the cruisers, the position is quite plain. The Government of that day had been in office but six weeks, and they came down to the House and made it clear that they brought forward this reduced programme, as compared with what had been expected from the preceding Government, and were then prepared to make inquiries as to the naval position. Surely it is much more logical and sensible to inquire into the facts and circumstances before one makes decisions, than to make one's decisions on narrow doctrinaire lines without any consideration with regard to the circumstances. I am bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman has no ground upon which he can criticise my right hon. Friend the leader of the Opposition. On other matters, and with regard to Singapore, we are hoping to challenge the position of the Government on Monday next, and I would now simply ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can see his way to answer some of the points that have been put before him, and then perhaps we shall be allowed to go home at a reasonable hour.

Viscountess ASTOR: I shall not keep the Committee long, though the House has kept me long, for I have been waiting eight hours to say a few words in reference to local matters. I had been hoping that the First Lord had got complete agreement about marriage allowances for officers, but apparently this matter is still being considered. I must say that the Admiralty is the most considerate place in the world—it is always considering things. I quite agree that it is not their fault; it is the Treasury, and my advice to the Admiralty is that they should take the Treasury officials for a cruise. I do not think they know anything about the Navy, and it would be a splendid thing at the Manoeuvres, to take the whole of the Treasury officials and let them see, because that is where the real trouble lies. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has the advantage that ho can choose his point
of view from many parties—Coalition. Liberal, or Conservative. I hope that when he chooses in regard to the Navy he will choose the Conservative point of view. When it conies to beer, he might choose from his Liberal past, but I hope very much that he will consider the Navy a a Conservative. I hope very much that the First Lord will not be robbed this time of what he knows are the just clues of the wives of men of the Navy. One hon. Member said a little while ago that they ought not to marry. The trouble is not so much with the naval officers or the lower deck; it is that the men in the Navy are more attractive than other men, and it is very difficult for them to keep single. So I do not think it is quite right to claim that they should not marry.
We are all pleased at Plymouth to see the widening of the mouth of the Prince of Wales Basin, and also the graving dock, but there is also a good deal to be done in the Dockyard, such as the roads and many improvements. I hope that the First Lord will not forget that. When it does come to a question of building the cruisers, I hope that he will compare the cost of cruisers built at Plymouth to those built at Chatham.

Sir G. HOHLER: On a point of Order. Would it not be right to make a moral gesture to the Noble Lady?

Viscountess ASTOR: It would be immoral. The Plymouth Dockyard has built at a much cheaper rate than the other two dockyards. I do not mean anything against Chatham or Portsmouth by that, but I hope that the House will remember that point. The last time I had to draw the attention to the rates and allowances paid in the East Indies and China, which are exactly the same as those paid in England, the First Lord said that the matter was under consideration, but it is very important for the men living out there because their requirements are much more expensive than at home. Vocational training is a subject to which we have drawn attention in Plymouth. The army have six months in which they are trained at Hounslow and Catterick could not the Navy men go there too? They only have two months, and it is difficult to get proper training in that time.
I was amused at the way in which some hon. Members put forward the grievances of the lower deck. They got them from a little dossier without looking into it. In reference to the question of accommodation I may refer to the tragedy of tuberculosis among writers in the Navy, not only in our Navy but also in the United States Navy. Of course it is very difficult to get over, but it is very tragic, and I hope that the Government will leave nothing undone to deal with that matter. Another important question is that of promotion from the lower deck. It is very slow, and I know that there are many reasons for it; but I hope that the First Lord will consider the matter and do what he can about it. In reference to the welfare committees I know that the present First Lord will know that they are in no way connected with anything that the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) has been talking about. They are the most loyal men in the Navy. These committees were set up in 1919, and they are a means of making known the genuine grievances of the men, and have done a lot of good. They are evidence of a progressive spirit, but that does not mean that these men wish to join the hon. Member for North Battersea. On the question of Divine service I believe that compulsory religion makes hypocrites. From what I have known of the men of the lower deck I believe that most of them would go voluntarily. Sometimes it is very irritating, to say the least, to have to go to church and listen to people with whom one is not in sympathy. I speak from the point of view of religion itself and not from the point of view of the men only. It is better to have five men at a service with their hearts there than to have fifty who are thinking of something else.
I have been amazed at some of the arguments put forward to-day. In regard to Singapore, the leader of the Opposition said that last year the Labour Government had postponed their decision. I am convinced that if the Labour Government had been in office now they could not have turned down the scheme, and I hope that on Monday they will search their consciences, for it is a very great responsibility for anyone who believes in the British Empire to reject the Singapore scheme. The right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) spoke about economy. I think the Government have
taken a course between the two extremes; they have not turned down Singapore, nor are they going forward with the shipbuilding programme until they investigate things a little more. We can trust them not to let down the Navy. Civilisation itself depends on either the United States or the British Empire. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to laugh. They have not been East. They know that the creation of the Singapore base was understood at Washington. What they say now is having a bad effect on the world, because they are putting wrong notions into the heads of people. It is a. disservice for them continually to refer to Singapore as a menace to peace, whereas it is really an insurance for peace. If they do not want an Army or a Navy let them say so. If they do want a Navy let them see that it is sufficiently strong to keep the peace. It is a little hard to understand them. I know that some of them do not want an Army, and the most pugnacious of them are the ones who do not want an Army. That is what is so extraordinary. The holy Member in the corner opposite does not want an Army.

Mr. MacLAREN: Is it in order for any hon. Member to cast the reflection of holiness on a Member who is not holy?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dennis Herbert): The hon. Member did not object to the statement.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Is it in order to apply the remark to my right hon. Friend below me who is also sitting in a corner seat?

Viscountess ASTOR: I wish hon. Members would not be so sensitive about their holiness. I do not mean to cause dissension among them as to which is holy and which is not. Let us look at this Navy question from a world point of view. It is not that this Government is less pacific than the last Government, but it is that we who believe in peace have to insure, and the best way we can insure is to keep an efficient police patrol throughout the world. [Interruption.] People who will not keep order in this House, want peace in the world. They do not give us a very peaceful example of a world governed by good will and understanding, and they refuse even to try to understand our point of view. Some of us believe in the League of Nations and all
that goes with it, but we also believe it would be unfair to put the burden of keeping world peace on the League unless countries were prepared to defend themselves up to a certain point. Hon. Members must be consistent.

Mr. MAXTON: That is the suggestion we are making to the hon. Member. She should be consistent.

Viscountess ASTOR: Many of us are perfectly consistent. If you want the perfect character you do not get it all at once; it is a long process, and it is a long process getting peace. We are on the way to peace, but it is not the way to peace to suggest that we should do away with the Navy. If hon. Members opposite want the Navy only to defend the Mediterranean and the Atlantic let them have the courage to say so and to advocate cutting it in half. If they really want it to defend the whole Empire they must have the Singapore base and keep it up to proper strength. The Leader of the Opposition knows he would not have dared to take the responsibility, with the East as it is now and the whole world as it is now—particularly the friends of members opposite in Russia—of leaving the British Empire undefended. I hope hon. Members will forgive me for detaining them so long, but I, like our Prime Minister, am keen on peace and I resent the manner in which some hon. Members opposite regard our efforts to get it. A moral gesture becomes a joke if you are not consistent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] You have made the joke; we have not done it.

Mr. STEPHEN: You have made the moral gesture—Singapore.

Viscountess ASTOR: We have been absolutely consistent. We want peace, and the Prime Minister is doing all he can to bring about peace, but you will not gets by opposing the Empire in this House and by leading the world to believe that because we are trying to keep up our Navy—which is not up to the Washington agreement strength—we are really arming for a future war. We are doing nothing of the kind, and hon. Members who take that view are doing no service to this country or to the cause of peace.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir ALAN BURGOYNE: The Noble Lady appealed to the Committee for indulgence because of the late
hour and I have an even greater right to make that appeal. I have listened to all the speeches delivered in this Debate, with perhaps one exception and there is only one exception and there is only one speech upon which I would say a word. That is a word of mild protest from this side against the speech of the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala). If there is one great privilege we have in this country, of which we are proud, it is freedom of speech and one can only regret—I say it with all sincerity—that the hon. Member for Battersea does not use his great talents to support the country which protects him, instead of condemning it. There was one note sounded through nearly all the speeches to-night, and that was that, while there must be differences of opinion between parties and even among members of the same party as to details of naval policy and of the Estimates before us, everyone, generally speaking, is desirous of seeing this country protected by a sufficient and efficient Navy. Where we differ is as to what a sufficient and efficient Navy should be. We know that the recent Conservative administration wanted eight cruisers and incidentally, most of the discussion has centred round the fact that there is no sign of the naval construction programme. Dealing with those cruisers, we, as a party, two years ago wanted eight. In come the Labour party, and they reduce them to five. The Liberal party, with all their desire to see this country remaining efficient at sea, have the audacity on two occasions to vote that no cruisers whatever should be laid down.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: That is what the present Government are doing.

Sir A. BURGOYNE: Surely the first thing that we have to consider is what is the policy in regard to our naval defence. Before the war, the matter was quite simple. The centre of possible conflict and of international explosion was in Europe. Today there are only three nations in the world that have a Navy worthy the name: America, Japan, and ourselves, and they are spread evenly round the globe. That being so, and the Washington Conference having practically wiped the battleship off the slate, we can regard the matter from an entirely different standpoint. Who is it that sets policy? It is the Executive of the day, and I recall reading the case
of Sir Geoffrey Hornby, a well known Admiral who was First Lord of the Admiralty, and who said this before a Committee: "It is for the politicians to say, ' We want to defend the Channel.' That is their business. It is for me to say, ' You want so many ships, you want so many men, and you want so much money.' That is my business. They can then say, ' That is too much.' That again is their business. But what they cannot say is, ' You shall not have the money, but you shall defend the channel.' That is not their business, for they do not understand it." I should like the Leader of the Opposition to have been here to tell us the policy upon which he based their reduction of the eight cruisers down to five, and I would like to know from any Member of the Shadow Cabinet, if there be one, of the party below the gangway opposite on what policy they base their desire to have no cruisers whatever.
This cruiser question has much more in it than meets the eye. The cruiser to-day of 10,000 tons is costing £ 2,250,000, or rather more than a dreadnought before the war, and we must remember that, if the battleship, as we understood it in the past, goes, the cruiser we are now constructing is what is going to take its place, for the battleship is always the vessel which is the final arbiter of wars at sea. I want to make two suggestions, one of which I know will meet with the approval of hon. Members opposite. We are going, if we build these cruisers—and they must be built if we are going to maintain our position at sea—to enter upon the very great expense of £ 2,250,000 apiece, and probably a little more, and I would remind the Committee that the present Colonial Secretary said that we should require to have another 62 cruisers in the next ten years to make up the deficiency of vessels now becoming obsolete. In these circumstances, eight were to be laid down last year and eight this year, owing to the larger proportion of the vessels that are becoming obsolete doing so in the next five or six years.
But cannot we get that cut down in some way? We may build eight cruisers of 10,000 tons with 8-inch guns up to the limit set by the Washington Conference. Surely an opportunity occurs now; and I would ask hon. Members opposite to believe that we do not want to spend money on cruisers just for the sake of seeing them at sea. We know it is unproductive ex-
penditure, and we want to get our defences, our national insurance, at the cheapest possible cost, but it is no good going only half way. Let us see whether we cannot do something with this proposal: Could we not come to an arrangement whereby, instead of the limit remaining at 10,000 tons, we could reduce it to 8,000 tons, and reduce the calibre of the guns from 8-inch to 6-inch' To do that would immediately reduce the cost of those cruisers by half, particularly if, at the same time, we could arrive at a basis of an arrangement so that the speed of those cruisers should not exceed 30 knots. I wonder whether it is appreciated that to get an extra 2½ knots in a vessel like the "Enterprise" of 7,000 tons, you have to have 15,000 more horse-power than you have in a vessel of 10,000 tons doing 30 knots. The extra 2½ knots cost £ 300,000 more. If we could take up an attitude like that, where all remain exactly as we stand to-day, we protect ourselves and go ahead with our cruiser programme in the knowledge that we are going to do it economically.
I am going to close with a remark on a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition, and one which, I think, must be revised. He referred to the view that we must not lay down dockyards anywhere for fear we should make people think we were doing something detrimental to friendly relation between thorn and ourselves. I ask this question: 1s our Naval policy in the future to be dictated by the susceptibilities of other nations? It is for us to state absolutely what we require, and those requirements are based on the needs of the Fleet, and the Fleet is based on the needs of the Empire.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think, perhaps, the Committee will not wish me to reply in very great detail to all the very interesting points that have been raised. If I may be allowed to say so, I shall consider all the points, and that will enable hon. Members to get home rather sooner. There are one or two things to which I must refer. One or two Members have complained because there is no new construction in the present Estimates, on the ground that there is a danger that there may be no reconstruction programme at all. I think that they must rely, as I do, upon what the Prime Minister said in answer to a question this afternoon, that the whole problem of
replacement of cruisers and warships is under the consideration of a Cabinet Committee, and that the decision will be taken by the Cabinet in time to allow of a Supplementary Estimate before the end of this Session. If I had not that to rely upon, I should be inclined to agree with the critics who have spoken to-day, but I do rely upon that undertaking, and I would ask them to rely upon it, too. The hon. Member who has just spoken complained of the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) for having told us that the Communist attitude is exactly the opposite of the policy of His Majesty's Government both with regard to Singapore and all the other points on which we are basing our Estimates. He has not attempted to pose as a friend of England, and, therefore, may I thank him for talking about "Your country," and "You"?

Mr. MAXTON: That was "Comrade FitzRoy".

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should like to express my proper need of gratitude of the hon. Gentleman the Member of North Battersea for the help he has given me in this matter. There are two or three points involved in the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member of Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) who moved the reduction of this Vote. In this he was, I understand, supported previously by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) who spoke before the resolution was moved. His main objection was that this was heavy taxation. That is perfectly true. Before, however, I come to that I should like to deal with one or two of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's observations. He is, I think, making a mistake as to the ships' libraries. Reference libraries have been installed in the ships of the Navy for many years.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: As to ships' libraries, naval officers will bear me out that there was a grant of money for the purchase of school books, reference books, etc., and I am glad, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, that there has been an improvement.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that I did not show any sympathy with the idea of disarmament. I beg to contradict that
most emphatically. At no moment have I ever expressed anything but the greatest desire to assist in any conference, or in any other way, by which armaments could be reduced in this or any other country. All I have said was that I would go to such conference, or approve of it, with this consideration in my mind: that of all countries in the world, we are the one that depends entirely upon naval strength. I shall be guided by that one consideration—that as compared with other countries our interest in the Navy is far more important than that of any other country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen suggested that it would be easy to reduce taxation. I quite agree that money should not be spent without a proper return for it. Ineffective economy is something which might cost you more in the future, There are many proverbs on the point. There is the proverb about a stitch in time, spoiling the ship for a halfpenny worth of tar, but I do not think there is any better example of that fallacy than the saying of Cicero
Non intelligunt hominess quam magnum sit vectigal parsimonia.
Translated it means "People do not understand what a heavy tax parsimony may be; "and when you are talking about economy in the naval services, or any other service, you must be careful to see that you are not saving something now which will cost you more at some future time—that you are not piling up taxes for the future even if you are saving a tax now. I hope that we shall be able to

take the vote now. I should like to thank hon. Members who have taken part in the Debate for the way in which they have dealt with the subject and to congratulate several hon. Members for very interesting maiden speeches. I hope that with the promise I have given to consider the points raised hon. Members will be satisfied; I will carry out that undertaking.

Commander BELLAIRS: The right hon. Gentleman has said that an undertaking was given by the Prime Minister that Supplementary Estimates would be submitted to Parliament, if it was considered necessary, before the summer holidays. That answer was given to me to-day, and was to the effect that if the result of the inquiry showed a need for Supplementary Estimates,
they will be presented, I hope, before Parliament rises for the summer holidays.
May we take it that the Supplementary Estimates will be submitted to Parliament before the summer holidays if the Cabinet consider them necessary?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): There is no doubt about that. I inserted the words "I hope" as a precaution.

Questions put,
That 102,575 Officers, Seamen, Boys, and Royal Marines, together with 350 Royal Marine Police, be maintained for the said Service.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 77; Noes, 221.

Division No. 54.]
AYES.
[11.55 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Ammon, Charles George
Hayes, John Henry
Saklatvala, Shapuri


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Bowerman, fit. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scurr, John


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Charleton, H. C.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Compton, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Dalton, Hugh
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sutton, J. E.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Mackinder, W.
Taylor, R. A.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Tinker, John Joseph


Day, Colonel Harry
March, S.
Varley, Frank B.


Duncan, C.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Murnin, H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Fenby, T. D.
Naylor, T. E.
Welsh, J. C.


Forrest, W.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gibbins, Joseph
Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gillett, George M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Riley, Ben



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Sir Godfrey Collins and Sir Robert


Harris, Percy A.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks. W. R., Elland)
Hutchison.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Elveden, Viscount
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Albery, Irving James
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Fielden, E. B.
Neville, R. J.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool. W. Derby)
Finburgh, S.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Alien, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Fleming, D. P.
Nuttall, Ellis


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Forestier-Walker, L.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Oakley, T.


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Astor, Viscountess
Gee, Captain R.
Perring, William George


Atholl, Duchess of
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Atkinson, C.
Goff, Sir Park
Pitcher, G.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Grace, John
Preston, William


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Price, Major C. W. M.


Balniel, Lord
Grotrian, H. Brent
Radford, E. A.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Ramsden, E.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Remer, J. R.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.
Hammersley, S. S.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hanbury, C.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bennett, A. J.
Harland, A.
Rye, F. G.


Bethell, A.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Betterton, Henry B.
Hartington, Marquess of
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Hawke, John Anthony
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Blundell, F. N.
Henderson. Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustava D.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Shepperson, E. W.


Briscoe, Richard George
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm, Sir A.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Smithers, Waldron


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hilton, Cecil
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Burgoyne, Lieut-Colonel Sir Alan
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Stanley, Col. Hon, G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Burman, J. B.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Homan, C. W. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sugden. Sir Wilfrid


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Templeton, W. P.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Huntingfield, Lord
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hurd, Percy A.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell. (Croydon, S.)


Christie, J. A.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Tinne, J. A.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Jacob, A. E.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-


Clayton, G. C.
Jephcott, A. R.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Kennedy. A. R. (Preston)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otis)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Cooper, A. Duff
Knox, Sir Alfred
Watts, Dr. T.


Cope, Major William
Lamb, J. Q.
Wells, S. R.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
White Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)
Little. Dr. E. Graham
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Crookshank, Col C. de W. (Berwick)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Loder, J. de V.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Looker, Herbert William
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Lougher, L.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Wise, Sir Fredric


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Womersley, W. J.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lumley. L. R.
Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Dixey, A. C.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak)


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Drewe, C.
Macmillan Captain H.
Wragg, Herbert


Eden, Captain Anthony
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Makins, Brigadier-General E,



Ellis, R. G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Margesson, Captain D.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Colonel Gibbs and Captain Douglas Hacking.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw



Original Question put, and agreed to.

WAGES, &C, OF OFFICERS AND MEN OF THE ROYAL NAVY AND ROYAL MARINES, AND CIVILIANS EMPLOYED ON FLEET SERVICES.

Resolved,
That a sura, not exceeding £ 15,040,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, &c. of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and Civilians employed on Fleet Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926.

WORKS, BUILDINGS, AND REPAIRS AT HOME AND ABROAD.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £ 2,588,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Perchase of Sites, Grants in Aid, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926.

VICTUALLING AND CLOTHING FOR THE NAVY.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £ 4,509,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1926.

WAYS AND MEANS.

Considered in Committee.

[CAPTAIN FITZROY in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, the sum of £ 8,137,227 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolved,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, the sum of £ 163,314,200 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

TRADE FACILITIES BILL.

Read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Thirteen Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.